Letters and Replies That Will Satisfy Everyone

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Johnny Cash, Naturally

Well done, Uncle Doug! Keep up the great work!!

Jake

Jake, thanks.
Re: The Fingerbone of St. Johnny of Cash
I enjoyed the ad. In 1994, R.C. Sproul said (and I paraphrase): “If a Christian today marches out to battle with the current culture, he will be shot . . . and most likely shot in the back by fellow Christians who are afraid of how his public stance will negatively affect them.” Keep up the good work men of Moscow.

Ted

Ted, thanks very much.
Thank you for raising the paradoxical point that the same people who cry foul at the suggestion of flipping the bird are welcoming that and many other Hollywood horrors into their family room TV in the evenings (Matthew 7:3-5 might be a good read).
The only thing missing from the ad was encouraging young men to bring their critics to the 2 Kings Zoo to feed the bears.

Ben

Ben, thank you.
Re: The Scandal of the Middle Finger Ad
Cursing is a sin, even in sign language.

Lance

Lance, I am afraid it is not that simple. It can be a sin. “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness” (Rom. 3:14). And it can also be most righteous. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:8).
I am a pastor in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. I am orthodox, Reformed, complementarian, and postmill. I am willing to go to jail for teaching biblically in a country that proved it is willing to send faithful pastors to jail.

I have found great benefit from so much of what has come out of Moscow, notably Douglas Wilson—you have had immense impact in my Biblical faithfulness in these unfaithful times. I am “kicking the tires” on the CREC, and in regular contact with many CREC folks in Canada.

I would like a response to defend the use of the “jolly roger” in the latest NSA ad. Or desire to see a repentance and retraction. I believe this was misguided passion that comes from a fervent heart.

1) The term F*** YOU needs definition. I put that in all caps because that is exactly what is communicated in Johnny Cash’s middle finger.
a. If those words were agreed by all that it only meant “Get away,” “I really really don’t like you at all and never want to see you again.” Then that would be wholly appropriate to communicate to an idol, or the demons behind the idol. But that is NOT the summation of the term.
b. The word means to have sex with (generally in a derogatory manner). That is the literal meaning. The F-word cannot be divorced from the sexual implication, especially when broadcast to the whole world on the WWW.
2) IT DOESN’T FIT—the words “F*** YOU idols” doesn’t fit. The Bible’s course words, images and actions always fit.
a. Isaiah’s use of the bloody menstrual cloth (64:6) perfectly fit their disgusting impurity. Ezekiel 23—speaking of the whoredom of the north and south tribes, perfectly fit. Paul’s desire that penis cutters would cut off their penises completely, perfectly fit. Paul’s summation of all his goodness amounting to skuballa (basically S-word), perfectly fit. Jesus driving out the money changers, perfectly fit. Jesus saying that the religious leaders don’t have Abraham as their father, but rather they were following their true father, the serpent, perfectly fit.
b. Doug Wilson using the word “c-word” to refer to abortion-loving feminists who identified themselves according to their vaginas, fit. Again, Doug Wilson standing on a flag representing pride for sin, perfectly fit (especially as in Christ the enemy is being put under our feet).
c. Saying “F-word YOU idolatry” is akin to molesting an idol (again you cannot divorce the sexual component from the word). There is no way in Scripture, even in Isaiah 30:22, that we are to desecrate idols (like an Asherah pole) by dry humping it. This doesn’t fit. If it did make sense, then I would encourage the offended to see the logical correlation. I don’t actually know if the words ever fit. I can’t think of an example.
d. The Biblical defense is not Biblical—it is eisegesis, not exegesis.
3) There is a good heart behind this, and we must not only disagree with sin, we must hate it (Romans 12:9). But this is not that. We should not use the world’s crudeness to fit the world’s vileness. When we start using the language of demons, it takes effect. On Cross Politic, the guys were very clear that they were giving the finger only to the idols. Sure. But NOT REALLY. In misguided fervor, Gabe let out his carnal heart. He said, “I would” to giving the middle finger to a person (time stamp 50:50 ). I get it, we all get a bit passionate and slip, I do it all the time. But let us not defend our slipping and encourage slipping in others. It’s not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out. Polluted language, pollutes the mind. I think that happened with Mark Driscoll when he became famous for being the swearing pastor.
4) This controversy has divided so many faithful, Biblical, and Reformed people. Doug Wilson often speaks about how the right should not be punching the right so much. I think this video has created a mass amount of division amongst friends, and greatly hinders the ability for us on the right to win over moderate orthodox to Biblical faithfulness and pushes them over to critics like Phil Vischer. This controversy is likely very satisfying to Ligon Duncan and Kristen Du Mez. This ad has given so much ammo to the enemy. Misused vulgarity is evangelistic suicide. We are not to remove any offense to the gospel, neither are we to add to the offense of the gospel. I believe the ad, and Moscow’s defense of it, has added to the offense.

I BEGG the Moscow crew to not pull an Alistar Begg. He was wrong and should have repented. You all in Moscow pleaded with him to listen to the iron sharpening of faithful brothers in Christ to make a correction. You told him it was not too late. Please listen to biblical reason. Thank the Christian community for loving feedback and have the video edited. And take an opportunity to expand on Romans 12:9—about why it’s not okay to simply disagree with sin, but we need to hate it with a pure hatred. But that we must fight dragons with the weapons and armour we are given in Scripture, not worldly weapons.

The ad spoke of reading books of old dead guys. One of the those is Augustine. When he was asked to name the 3 most important virtues of Christianity, he said, “Humility. Humility. Humility.” Please listen to that old dead saint.

Sincerely,

Pastor Matt

Note to all—I was the one who added the asterisks above.
Pastor Matt, thank you for a most thoughtful letter, and for first expressing all the areas of agreement we have. I believe that our one (significant) area of disagreement is etymological, and is a good example of the etymological fallacy. The word is certainly sexual in its origin, but to insist that it has kept that sexual component everywhere it goes is just not accurate. If you try to keep the sexual meaning always and everywhere, it makes no grammatical sense at all. The word is an all-purpose intensifier (e.g. “he was effing angry about it.”)—where is the sex in that? It registers utter contempt (e.g. “eff off”)—where is the sex in that? And if you move from there to the sign language, it becomes even more challenging. Whatever we had in mind, our point was not to attract students who are wanting to rape the idols.
I love Canon Plus, the Wilsons, and especially NSA. In fact, I just recently suggested to friends to look into it for their daughter. Now I’m hoping they don’t run across the new video with Johnny Cash giving the bird—that I think took the serrated edge, which I’ve defended to others before, too far. I’m praying that you all will walk this one back. I’ve seen you apologize and walk things back before, so I know introspection is not void, though your critics would suggest that it is. I am not in the camp of critics, far from it. I’m frequently accused of being a Wilson stan. Now this video is making the rounds of X, so I know there will be more that comes of our way of needing to defend affection for Moscow. Please consider pulling it, having decided that it was a step too far. I want to point grandparents, friends, and others to NSA as a viable option for my kids without needing to address this kind of thing. There’s already plenty of defensible things to regularly address, which we are happy to do.

Heather

Heather, thank you for all the times you have defended us. Thank you.

The Voting Dilemma

With all respect, I think you overlook a dimension that has significant effects on how responsible Christians vote: what a vote actually accomplishes varies by locale. If Gavin lives across the border in Nevada, what you are saying makes much more sense—his vote (and those of similarly situated Christians) has a greater chance to make an effect on the outcome of the election. For you and me, however, our votes will have no impact on whether it’s Trump or Harris, only the magnitude of Trump’s victory in Idaho and Wyoming, respectively. For voters in solidly red or blue states, perhaps our votes are more meaningful as a message to the GOP that it has to do better than Trump if it wants our support, than as another drop in Trump’s overflowing bucket. And I’m not talking about a vote for Harris (heaven forbid) which would disappear amidst the few democratic voters here. But a protest vote (or non-vote) that is identifiably conservative would at least be visible, and if enough Christians took this approach, it may set off warning lights at the GOP—doubtful, but I see this as slightly more likely to effect a real outcome than a vote for either Trump or Harris in a solidly colored state. I certainly won’t shame Christians who vote for Trump in solidified states, but nor should they feel the need to vote for Trump to save the republic, because that doesn’t depend on them (and I realize that’s a privilege that swing state voters don’t have, and they face a far more difficult decision, in my judgment).

Pat

Pat, you make a good point. Christians in Idaho and Christians in Pennsylvania are not facing the same problem.
I agree with you in the broad sense that “Your Vote Is No Sacrament.” But I’m concerned that your categorization of Christians who disagree with you on particulars—“those Christians who do not vote (or who feel they must cast write-in purity votes)”—is inaccurate and reductionist.

You divide abstainers/third-party voters into two groups: cynics and perfectionists. The latter group you divide into two sub-groups. The hard perfectionists, you say, won’t vote for someone like Trump because he is “a less-than-perfect candidate.” The soft perfectionists, you say, won’t vote for him because he “violates their code of the gentleman.”

While I am sure there are some who fit nicely into the “cynic” or “perfectionist” categories, the bulk of third-party voters I know (including myself) are motivated by neither of those petty extremes. As has been trumpeted by many pro-Trumpers, we’re not electing a pastor-in chief. The qualifications for elder do not readily apply to the office of President. And yet, there needs to be some measurable threshold of acceptability, which, when violated, disqualifies a candidate for consideration. And for many of us, Trump fails that test on numerous occasions—not because he isn’t a gentleman or because he says naughty things, but because he is deeply immoral.

That doesn’t mean Trump hasn’t done some good. We can—and do—acknowledge, as you say, “that he was the reason Roe was struck down, for which we thank God.” The Lord worked through a donkey in Numbers 22, and he did so again (through an elephant-shape donkey) from 2017 through 2020. That doesn’t mean we’re obligated to tie our wagon to said donkey, especially when he has gutted the Republican platform of its longstanding pro-life and pro-family principles and, in effect, dared evangelicals like you and me to abandon him.

One factor that appears to be driving your conclusions is a heavy dose of consequentialism. There is, of course, wisdom in evaluating the consequences of one’s actions (as Proverbs 22:3—among others—tells us). But that principle can be taken too far, to the point where we’re arguing that the end justifies the means. Your rhetoric indicates that’s what you’re arguing. Or, at the very least, you’re leaning so heavily in that direction that the car is tipping over.

You give us a hypothetical scenario (which, to your credit, you admit is a “tall order”) in which a pro-lifer “should be able to vote for a pro-choice candidate.” But after giving the details of this imagined scenario—which may or may not happen—you then ask us, “Now what does purity look like?” You’re asking us to make a judgment call based on possible future events as if they’re a foregone conclusion. But the Christian isn’t supposed to place ultimate value in their moral choices on what *might* happen in the future.

The reasons you give for voting (in this particular post, at least), look and smell and taste like consequentialism: “I would greatly prefer the state of affairs that would result from his election to the state of affairs that will result from the alternative”; “If Harris is elected, there will be no evangelicals in the White House, or anywhere near it. . . . If Trump is elected, the place will be crawling with believers.”

(I don’t know how many evangelicals a Harris administration would staff, but it would definitely include Christians. As to the potential numerous believers in a Trump White House, what kind of believers would they be? Certainly of the “yes-man” variety that cater to his whims and fancies, providing little to no pushback on his increasingly pro-choice and anti-family stances.)

You say near the end of your piece, “This is not a case of ‘let us do evil that good may result.’” And yet your justification for voting for an immoral pro-choice Republican lays solely on the (hypothetical) consequences of that vote.

I’m not trying to convince you to change your stance—or even your vote (although I do question the wisdom of a pastor, and one with as much clout as yourself, sharing his voting preferences so publicly). I merely want to help you better see how your perspective is coming across. Your oversimplification of third-party voting is neither helpful nor charitable. And while it’s possible you really aren’t a consequentialist, you’re doing a darn good job of coming across as one

Cap

Cap, I cannot ask someone to pass the mashed potatoes without being a consequentialist. I agree that there is an evil consequentialism (doing an overtly evil thing in order to bring about a good result), but it is by no means clear that casting a vote for Trump is an evil thing. That is what we are debating. If the Proud Boys decided that dressing up like Antifa and rioting in swing states would help Trump, and then they did it, that would the sinful sort of consequentialism.
I recently discovered your ministry and thought provoking and enlightening material. With the upcoming election in mind, I was wondering if you had something on the topic of choosing leaders?

Timothy

Timothy, I have written a lot on this. This would be an example.
Thank you for all of your work and inside in today’s times, Our whole family really appreciates you! Maybe you’ve already spoken about this and I missed it, but I would hear love to hear more about the increasing trend of conservative Christians, who are choosing not to vote at all this election because Trump is not pro-life. They have an all or nothing stance and conviction. I see this becoming popular in the circles we run with . . . and it’s concerning.

Katie

Katie, yes. I hope to be writing more about this.
I appreciated your post on “Why Your Vote is No Sacrament,” and ascribe to your belief in “Smash Mouth Incrementalism.” However, Trump’s comments on Amendment 4 in Florida have severely weakened my resolve to support him. His betrayal to DeSantis’s incredible achievement to limit abortion in Florida is disheartening; not to mention his usage of terms like, “reproductive rights,” and now the ostensible support of Amendment 4 that would enshrine abortion as a constitutional right up until viability. My question is, is it not time to (metaphorically) Smash Trump’s mouth here? Is it better to make an example out of him at this point by not voting for him? Do we risk a new normal in the GOP where abortion is only a secondary issue if we don’t tank his run, or at least make him change his tune? While it’s not what I hope for, it seems like this betrayal and embracing of such an evil position almost deserves him losing at this point. After all, how did it go in the Old Testament when kings sought victory by political alliances with Pagans?

Jonathan

Jonathan, what happened with Amendment 4 is a good example of why we shouldn’t abandon ship yet. He said some really worrisome things about it, but apparently got sufficient feedback and pressure that he said that he was going to vote no. There is no way that any amount of pressure would cause Harris to change her abortion stance. Trump is still someone who can be appealed to.

Educating Daughters

Regarding your 7 Theses on Educating Your Daughters, I give a hearty amen! As a well-educated woman, raising and educating a son and three daughters with my husband, I echo each of your sentiments. There was one area that I feel could have been elaborated on more. Perhaps this would fall under thesis #2 or #4, but I would add “edification of the body” as an eighth thesis. I am a member of a CREC church in which our body is full of highly educated, highly competent women that contribute to the body in various ways. Some are musicians and music teachers, some teach at a classical Christian school or teach at our local classical Christian homeschool co-op. One is a nurse practitioner (who now stays at home with her large family) that has provided excellent medical counsel to the mothers of the church. One runs our church kitchen brilliantly. One has an early childhood education degree and helped develop the preschool program at our local classical school. A few are nurses that now care for foster children in their homes. I could go on. In each of these cases, these women are diligent in their homes, care well for their families, but also use their unique gifts and educations to edify the body at large. For women who are single, empty-nesters, etc. this thesis also provides a dignified calling to those whose work in the home is less demanding than that of a woman with several children underfoot. Knowing your writing from other areas (and the track record of your daughters) I feel that you would support the idea that working outside the home (whether to help the home financially, serve the body of Christ, or be an ambassador to the community at large) is a beautiful thing, provided these things are not done at the expense of the peace and prosperity of the household. An excellent education can equip a woman for any task the Lord sets before her—within the home, the church, and the world at large.

LM

LM, thank you very much. And amen.
I agree with you on the value of good education, but the line is crossed when daughters are sent far away to a school where the father is not there to be able to protect them (same problem with single women going on missions).

L

L, yes. Daughters should not be anywhere that keeps dad from functioning as a responsible father. But this can be done responsibly from a distance.
I loved your 7 theses on educating your daughters. While I’m far from a feminist, I found this a very helpful answer to conservative over-corrections. That being said, is there any problem with a woman being in a STEM field, or even holding a job so long as she has the proper focus on the home? I know your own daughters are rather shrewd businesswomen, so what does a woman in the workforce look like biblically speaking?

Kenneth

Kenneth, no problem at all. A woman can be in all those places . . . provided she understands and hates feminism.
RE: 7 Theses on Educating Your Daughters
I really appreciate the work you are doing and the teaching you are putting forth, brother, both generally and on this issue. I completely agree with you on your reasoning. My wife pursued education at a Christian liberal arts college and is the better for it, personally, spiritually, theologically, ideologically, and as a current helpmate to me and future home educating mother. I am blessed and undeserving of the woman I am married to, college degree and all. She is actually better equipped to be my helpmate because of her education. So to the points in this article, yes and amen.
There is one variable to this discussion, though, that I’d appreciate your thoughts on that isn’t necessarily present in this article, and that’s the cost variable. The kind of education you are describing can come, depending on the exact institution involved, at a significant financial cost. (And rightly so—the workman is worthy of his hire, and we must not muzzle the ox treading out the corn.) The issue is that not all parents have the resources to put every one of their children through such an education at the college level, and the decision of whether to incur a student loan or not needs to be reckoned with by all of us, man or woman alike.
My wife went to school part-time and worked very hard to put herself through her Christian liberal arts education. Her parents supported her all they could, but their means were limited. God blessed her efforts. She married me with a vehicle, paid for, and no debt. That was an incredible blessing to me as I was getting started out in life at the same time—it would have been difficult to pay for student loans also. I also know that the school that she went to charged tuition that was consistent with what she could afford, after scholarships and such had been taken into account—so this was possible for her. I am also aware that this isn’t a reality everywhere.
This leads to the question: Is it necessarily a gift for a Christian woman who aspires to be an οἰκουργός (fully acknowledging the nuance that comes with that term as far as whether a wife/mother can work outside the home or not) to pursue this education, without a thought to the debt that results, and then have her husband (who may or may not have his own student loans to deal with) need to incur the additional financial burden of repaying that debt? Or what if pursuing this sort of education financially demands the conclusion that the wife has to work to repay it (and let’s assume for the sake of argument the husband is employed at his full potential and there is no foolish spending going on)?
Or am I thinking about this wrongly? My kids are young, and I don’t have any daughters yet, so I have time to prepare. Is it my job as family leader to solve this problem for my daughters? Would it be prudent as a father for me to set aside the cost of my daughter’s education to make this happen and give the gift of no debt to my future son-in-law? If my best efforts are insufficient on this, is it wise for me to encourage my daughter to work outside the home in the hostile world we are living in? (I feel differently for these same questions as to my sons, especially as to work outside the home to put his money where his mouth is. But I see protecting and providing for my daughters as my responsibility, until they marry.)
I think the reason this question needs to be asked is because most 17-18 year olds may not have marriage and the building of a godly family at the top of their to-do list, but they need to reckon with the fact that the decisions they make in the short term as far as where they go to school and what kind of debt they are incurring thereby at least, to me, have the potential to make obedience to God’s commands more challenging—especially if they end up meeting and marrying early, as you advocate for (rightly).
People that I respect greatly who did exactly what your article is indicating they should do have student loans that they are dealing with, plus all of the ordinary challenges of a young family. I struggle with that as far as what I should counsel my kids to do when they are in the same position. Maybe I shouldn’t.
I imagine you have room for this variable in your perspective on this issue, as a pastor, and heavily involved in a Christian university that is providing this sort of education to men and women alike. What is your pastoral guidance on this issue? I want to disciple and lead my family on this issue wisely, I have a high income potential, and I’m early enough in the game (no daughters yet) that I have time to pray and prepare, if needed.
Thank you, brother.
Love in Christ,
P.S. Disclaimer – I was homeschooled. That might help you understand my thoughts.

Joe

Joe, you are absolutely right. Cost should certainly be a factor, and I believe that there are many college degrees financed by foolish debt that were not worth it. That said, the fact that you are thinking about it now gives you time to prepare, and to make it a moot question for your household.
Great article on the importance of higher education for young women. I’ll add another reason (which you touched on obliquely) why women should go to college: it’s a great place to meet young men.
The men who keep their daughters home out of some misbegotten patriarchalism are really just narrowing the pool of suitors—they love their daughters so much that they don’t want them to have granddaughters.

Nathan

Nathan, thank you. Another good point.
Your article on “7 Theses for Educating Your Daughter” is pretty misogynistic, don’t you think?

Matt

Matt, no, I don’t, actually.
This is the best treatise I think I’ve read on this subject. Though neither of my parents were college educated, all four of the children have degrees. My parents, who married in 1937, did not have the finances to attend college but they were both avid readers and we had an extensive library at home. They couldn’t afford a television so reading was what we had. My husband and I both have degrees in music (no need to comment on my name . . . ) and we have spent over forty years enjoying music together—as well as being of the same mind on nearly everything else in life.

Melody

Melody, thank you.

A Difficult Situation

My wife has confessed to struggling with indulging romantic fantasies about another man over the last year. All in her head, nothing outwardly inappropriate. I have forgiven her and desire that to be the end of it. But I am left with three lesser struggles myself now.
First, a (limited) measure of insecurity, that I largely consider irrational, both in that I doubt neither her commitment to us, her attraction to me, nor her repentance and also in that it does no one any good that I can see. I trust this to fade with time, but it is a weight in my gut too often. I would appreciate any advice or warnings for me here.
Second, a (resisted) morbid curiosity. Perhaps this is merely the aforementioned insecurity, but I all too often find myself wondering about details of what went on in her mind. This seems worse than simple insecurity, right? I suspect this is sinful of me, wanting to know too much of sin, particularly one that’s wounded me, right?
And third, I wish to support and protect my wife in this. This man is in our community, unavoidable for us. We have made some prudent changes but are limited. She has some friends and older women whom she’s confessed to and is accountable to, but it is not clear to me where I best fit. Do I check in with her as they do? Given the first and second struggles, this feels fraught. When we first were engaged and discussing my own struggles with lust (which though they’ve faded dramatically since then, still are something I prefer accountability with others about), and they were so affecting of her she did not wish to be the one I regularly confessed to. Our agreement was that she could ask how things were going any time, but I would rely on men in my life to check in regularly and to be my chief confessors. It seems to me there is still wisdom in this, but I have seen you discuss often confessing these things to your wife and am questioning that. Now being on the other side of things, I can’t make up my mind and am questioning many things. Is planned, regular “accountability” even a Christian practice when the biblical focus seems to be on self-initiated confession? If this is a properly Christian practice, is it proper for spouses to provide this for each other regarding their sexual temptations? And if it’s confessing alone that should be our practice, how does this work with the wide range of such sins when they’re just in our mind? Clearly some degree of confession to your spouse is needed, as she did, but as this may be a persistent temptation, how/when should we confess ongoing struggles? Particularly when it can so heavily burden and upset!
And with all that, I wonder, am I over-complicating things?

CB

CB, no, you are not over-complicating things. This is complicated. First, I would ask her not to expand the circle of women she has shared this with. I would apply the same standard for both of you. You can ask her any time how it is going, and she can ask you any time how it is going. The main thing to ask is whether her accountability is helping. Take what this has done to you as a measure of what your confessed struggles did to her (and perhaps helped to set her up). And I would recommend not asking her anything that could telegraph any insecurity on your part. There is a tight rope here. You have a right to the information, but should not seek out the information in any way that makes your situation more challenging.

Slavery

So, if you remember our last conversation (which is doubtful) I had asked you if you could provide a copy of Southern Slaver As It Was.  You pointed me to Black and Tan which I have read since then.  I’ve become convinced from the Word of God, and your own comments and those of some others (oddly enough, I think Tom Nettles was also influential in my thoughts here.  I’d have to check that, though) that this is not an issue that is as cut and dry as we my like to think.
I believe that Lev. 25 does specify that chattel slavery is provided for, but as you have pointed out, not commanded.  I also believe that the overall teaching of the Bible points us to the ultimate good of every man being free.  I do not consider you a racist, and I agree that God has used the evils of southern slavery in a way that only He can for good.
How do I address this when the conversation comes up?  I’ve become convicted that every time my pastor says “chattel slavery was an atrocity” he is accusing (unbeknownst to him I’m sure) God of sin!  I also think that we slander all slave owners of the past, especially those in the South when we rail against them.  Is there a better way then just reading the passage in Leviticus, and letting the awkward silence hang in the air, while allowing my brothers and sisters to slowly begin to consider me a racist?
Granted that’s a worst case scenario, but I think the point isn’t that far from what would actually happen.  I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Thank you,

John

John, I would do your best to stay out of such conversations, but if it comes up unavoidably, I would cheerfully refuse to budge.

Get To and Got To

For fun I was listening again to the Evening of Eschatology you participated in coincident with the Desiring God conference of many years ago. Something you said about the end of the world and the change in the day of the Sabbath struck me this time around.
In the time since I last listened I’ve become a “get to, not got to” sabbatarian thanks to the resources on Canon+. I was almost convinced to become a strict sabbatarian by Walter Chantry’s Call the Sabbath a Delight, but the strictness seemed too out of place for the Lord’s Day delight found in the New Testament. I sensed that your view was the better one, but I couldn’t get past the strict passages about the Sabbath that included both the day and the regulations thereof remaining till the end of the world. In the EoE you said the day can change because the world did end at Calvary. That seems totally correct.
Now the question: Does the same logic apply to Matthew 5:18? I believe the Ten Commandments still apply to us today, and I appreciate the image from the Puritans of receiving them from the hand of Christ in place of the hand of Moses, but textually how do we explain this?
Thank you,

John

John, yes, that applies. The law, like the sabbath, was nailed to the cross. And the law, like the sabbath, rose again from the dead.

A Question from the Closet

I have a bit of a delicate situation that I would appreciate your comments about. I attend a CREC church. I am a 25-year-old single male with a good job and the elders are pressing me to get married. One of them has gone so far as to make a point of introducing me to a young lady he thinks would be perfect for me. I’ve been asked pointed questions about why I’m not married yet.
The issue is that I am not sexually attracted to women. I understand and accept the biblical prohibition on homosexuality and have decided to live a celibate life. I don’t think anyone has picked up on it because I fit none of the stereotypes—I play sports, tinker with cars, and do not present as effeminate.
I have not told the elders of my same-sex attraction, for two reasons. First, once someone knows, that is not the type of secret that keeps well. Second, I’m afraid I’ll be treated differently; instead of being just another congregant, which is what I want, I’ll be the person with the problem that everyone talks about. But, the thought of having sex with a woman completely grosses me out and I have no interest in waking up next to one every morning for the rest of my life. I also don’t think it would be fair to a woman to enter into what I would consider a sham marriage. I’ve made peace with being single.
Is there a polite and respectful way to tell the elders to back off and leave me alone? I’d hate to leave a church where I am otherwise happy and being fed spiritually, but I’m close. I’m starting to run out of excuses.

Just Fred

Just Fred, here’s the deal. You are right that it would be totally unfair for you to pursue a woman in your current frame of mind. But whether or not you get married, something has to be done about the way you think about heterosexual relations. Even if you remain single, that must go. And if you can’t do that on your own, then you need to get help. If you think the pastoral care in your church would leak, then get help via distance counseling. Seek out books that might help. This should be a high priority for you.

Question from an Agnostic

I’m a college professor in California and an agnostic. Still, I have a secular interest in religion and stay in touch with the more thoughtful expositors of particular religious views, a group in which I include you. As a result, I have been following your discussions on Christian Nationalism, and while I continue to have many questions about its potential structure—including the roles of legislators, courts, and the specific laws that would be enacted—my primary concern centers on its exclusive focus on the Protestant Christian faith and the sole concentration of power within that group.
I’m not sure you would agree with this, but historically, I personally believe one of the major strengths of the U.S. system has been the separation of powers among the three branches of government. It was designed this way to prevent any one group from gaining absolute power in the country and creating tyranny over others.
Now, I genuinely believe that you and the people in your community are honest and good actors, doing what you believe is in the best interest of the U.S. based on your religious faith. However, I think you can also understand the perspective of someone looking in from the outside, like myself as an agnostic, who might be somewhat skeptical about how this would work if implemented. For example—and I mean this only as a rough comparison, not as a critique of your view—if you read early descriptions of how Communism was envisioned to work in the early 20th century, it was portrayed idealistically as all sunshine and rainbows, but it turned into economic disaster and a tyranny rivaling Nazi Germany.
This brings me to my main concern: How do you prevent bad actors from taking control? I could accept from you that honest Christians would not engage in such behavior, but not everyone is honest. Individuals who seek power at all costs can be the most dishonest of all. So, if you have a government based on a single philosophy, and no one outside that philosophy is allowed to hold power, it seems to me that this could create an environment where a bad actor could rise through the ranks, not out of a desire to promote Christian values, but out of a desire to seize power. Do you not view this as a concern, and/or how does your proposal seek to minimize that possibility?
Anyway, if you have time to respond, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thank you.

Robert

Robert, thank you for your question, and thank you for including the separation of powers in it. That is the kind of thing that I mean by a distinctively Protestant view of government. The reason I want Protestant governance is because Protestant political theory requires limited government. Because we believe in the sinfulness of man, a Protestant approach to governance is going to limit strictly what the government is allowed to do.

Trinitarian Question

Are you familiar with Samuel Clarke’s “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity”? Would someone with his view of the Trinity be allowed within the membership of Christ Church?

Anon

Anon, I was not aware of him, and had to look him up. Someone who dogmatically held those views could not join. And if they held them in an untutored but teachable way, they could join, but not be in leadership.

Heading for Trouble

I believe it was Danté Alighieri that once referred to Aristotle as, “the master of those who know” and I would riff off of that and say in my experience that you are “the master of those who understand.” I have been hearing a lot (more) recently about the economy collapse being either imminent or at least very seriously within the realm of possibility in the “near” future.
You have always been so uniquely practical in your approach to the Christian life and I believe it was only a year or two ago that you released a Blog & Mablog on your advice to Christians in the upcoming decade (or something)—would you please consider commenting on practical considerations for Christians in how to not be faithless doomsday preppers on the one hand but still being discerning of the times and how to be practical and wise in anticipating a possible economic crisis? Frankly I don’t know what to do other than to work some overtime and buy a bar of gold or something, which doesn’t exactly strike me as an ingenious maneuver.
Thanks,

Seth

Seth, I will think about whether there is something I could do.

Full Preterists Incoming

About a year ago, I was told that there were only 14 Full Preterists. Well, since there were about 300 FP’s at the 2024 Arkansas Eschatology Conference that means that there was about a 20 times increase in a year. At that rate, there will be about 1,000,000,000 (one billion) FP’s on planet earth in 5 years and in the 6th year everyone will be Full . . . are you going to wait until the 6th year to become Full? (Can it really be? Did i do the math right?)

Thanks for listening—1 John 4:10,11

Your servant, Mark

Mark, no. When you guys get to 144,000, then the end will come.

A Really Odd One

I appreciate your pastoral wisdom and experience and I’m wondering whether you can help me with some advice on a difficult situation.
Recently I found out that our minister accidentally sent a nude picture of himself to our church youth group social media group. It seems it was intended for his wife. At least one of the young people saw the photo and others know about it. I feel quite uncomfortable with this situation but I can’t ask for advice from wise men I know without them finding out about what happened. I’m not one of the leaders in the church, and my children weren’t affected by it as they aren’t in the social media group, but I found out that it happened. It seems that the leaders are trying to minimize the damage—they have contacted the parents of those who have children in the social media group acknowledging what happened and saying it was a mistake. I believe the minister will be stood down from leading the youth for two weeks.
It seems to me from the outside looking in that this isn’t really being dealt with so much as hushed up. As a father of children who attend the youth group, I feel quite uncomfortable sending my children back. It raises doubts for me and I want to protect my children. I don’t want them to find out that a leader they respect did something so dumb—it could shake their faith. I’m also finding it hard to go to church and sit under the preaching knowing this happened—I have lost respect for the minister. I’m wondering whether I am out of order on this? Should I forget an (assumed) honest mistake like this? Are the leadership doing the correct thing by keeping this to the fewest people possible—only those directly impacted. Should parents of children in the youth group all be informed whether or not their children are in the social media notification group?
I did wonder whether this is a case of the minister not really being above reproach, sober minded, or ruling his house with dignity. Or am I being too harsh—I mean I expect him to be attracted to his wife—but sending nude photos doesn’t sit right with me—and the consequences in this case have been extremely unfortunate.
Do I need to leave the church?

Anon

Anon, given what you describe, it seems to me that you will need to leave. Either the minister sent it to the youth group “accidentally on purpose,” in which case he should be fired and reported to the authorities. But in the best case scenario, and it really was for his wife only, you have a minister who is being an online idiot. That should be dealt with in a manner commensurate with the problem. If it looks like it won’t be, then you have to do something.

Conversation Skills

Do you have any recommendations for books that can help teenagers recover the art of conversation?

Joel

Joel, I do not. Anybody else out there have suggestions?

Battle Hymn

Thoughts on “Battle Hymn of the Republic”? I am aware of it’s dubious historical association with proto-Progressives and that it was purposefully derived from “John Brown’s Body,” a heretical hymn praising an actual Christian terrorist (although the famous underlying melody was derived from the lovely “Say Brothers, Will You Meet us?” which long predates both the aforementioned). I ask because we are starting to host separate worship music gatherings throughout the week—I am selecting music from a broad range of some contemporary modern songs to older hymns. I contemplate “Battle Hymn” because most people at least know the refrain, it is fun to sing, and I think there is a special feeling for it from American Christians which does not have to be a negative thing. The lyrics seem fine apart from one of the final verses exhorting “let us die to make men free,” which IS heretical, and I change to “let us live to honor Him”. Any thoughts on any of this?

AT

AT, I don’t think it is a huge deal. I don’t like the song for a number of reasons, as you have mentioned, and I wouldn’t select it. But I don’t think it is a hill to die on—although the “hundred circling camps” would be the Yankee armies.

Forgiving a Pastor

You said that it isn’t gossip if one is part of the solution. I once went to a pastor for counseling. He gossiped about me to my friends. Now I think I’m obligated to tell those who wan to associate with him about my experience. Would I then be guilty of gossip?
Note, one, I do not have a habit of gossiping. Two, after confronting that pastor, he mailed me a written apology. I know that after you forgive someone, you don’t bring up the matter up with them, anyone else, or even yourself. But in this case, shouldn’t I warn those who are considering going to him for counseling? Three, I heard from others that he and his wife spoke ill of me on other multiple occasions. I did not bring it up with him again. We don’t talk anymore.
Thanks,

John

John, no. You shouldn’t warn people about this unless you have reason to believe that his repentance was hypocritical and insincere. But if he truly repented, and he changed his behavior, there is nothing to warn folks about.

Deconstructing the Deconstructionists

When Jesus taught his disciples that the stars will be falling from the sky, perhaps he was referring to the woke/antiracist stars (wink, wink). Here’s a play-by-play for you:
Apparently, Robin DiAngelo may have plagiarized the scholarly work of minority scholars as she wrote her Ph.D thesis at the University of Washington:
Before DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi and his antiracism center at Boston University cratered into the abyss:
Then before him, it waa BLM’s founder running off with all of the donor money to purchase million dollar properties:
Basically, I keep hearing Queen’s 1980 song in the background, “Another One Bites the Dust.” Finally, there was one more tidbit that I wanted to note about the Gavin Ortlund dust-up with Megan Basham. He did use the “love your neighbor” language in his Climate Change video. But in the same video, Ortlund also said something to the effect that if one is pro-life, then he/she would care about climate change. I’m not hearing anyone talk about that part not even Basham noted it in her book. To me, that’s just as egregious if not worse. Over and out.

Matthew

Matthew, thanks for the happy summary.

A Hard Case

I am a 27-year-old believer whose younger brother recently committed suicide. He dealt his whole life with a traumatic brain injury that impacted him emotionally and cognitively from a car wreck [when] we were in as very small children. He dealt for many years with depression and anxiety and felt very unloved and alone. I recently discovered that about 10 years ago he made multiple confessions of Christ and described a conversion on Facebook but never told my family or me. Also, after God saved me in high school, I brought him to church on occasion when he was willing to go, he heard the Gospel many times from myself and other friends, listened to Christian music nonstop, and I also have discovered he would watch theological videos occasionally on YouTube as well. On the other hand, I don’t know if he hardly, (or ever in the last several years), read the Bible, he was not baptized, and as I previously implied he did not attend church frequently at all. Am I wrong for having some confidence I will be reunited with him in Heaven? Do you think it is wrong for me to believe my brother might have been born again? I look forward to your comments. Thank you so much.
In Christ,

Dominick

Dominick, from what you have described, I don’t think you can have confidence. But it is possible to have hope, and just leave it with God.

The Eucharist

I have been listening to you for about two years now, since shortly after I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I find your teaching incredibly edifying and challenging, so thank you for all you do.
Recently, since my conversion to Protestantism, I have had conversations with my Roman Catholic family and friends about John 6 and specifically how it relates to communion. I currently attend an evangelical church with a memorialist view of communion, and have always felt uneasy about it, and though I reject transubstantiation outright, I don’t feel as though I can differentiate my upbringing as a (Christmas-Easter) Catholic and what the text actually says. Would you have any recommendations in books or a method of Bible study so I can gain clarity on this issue, of what communion actually is and what Jesus actually said to do and its implementation, what it means, etc.
Thanks,

RC

RC, I would strongly recommend Keith Mathison’s book, Given for You. Just what the doctor ordered.

Most Welcome

This isn’t a letter in response to any particular post, but this letter is simply to say “thank you.” I grew up in a Pentecostal Church most of my life( 25 years worth.), married, and spent 14 years at a Calvary Chapel. In that time we had 3 children. A few years ago I had a sudden feeling something was going to change. (just a feeling, but the feeling fits what happened later) Due to butting heads with a friend, a year and a half ago I gave him some space and I visited my brother in law’s church here in town (Christ Covenant Centralia) . I didn’t know what Reformed theology was.. Then I visited a second time. I visited a third time and, of all things, I loved the hymn/Psalm singing the most, and CC fulfilled it. Even better, my kids were singing the Psalms at home, and they never did that with the modern music! For the first time in my life I chose to change churches, and asked to join the church. They said “You want to become a member?” Wait, what!? No way was I going to make vows . . . then began my education into vows, Reformed theology, the covenant. My 3 children decided to become baptized, and after a years consideration I came to the conclusion that my 4th child, my now 6-month-old little girl was indeed born into the promises of the covenant because of my faith, and that she should then be baptized. I better understand the seriousness of my duties to raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and the curses if I do not. Much of the changes in the last year and a half have come because of your faithfulness, Aaron Ventura’s faithfulness, Joe Stout and others, and most of all God’s kindness to lead me here. This is the best year-and-a-half of my life, where I have seen the most fruit in my families lives. So, thank you. If someday I visit Moscow again, I’ll give you a hearty handshake. Cheers.
P.S. How did the Pentacostal church, never, ever, mention the biblical basis for sprinkling as a baptismal mode!? It took my 5 minutes to be convinced!!

David

David, many thanks. And may God continue to bless.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
85 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SomeGuy
SomeGuy
1 month ago

BRB, going to go give the finger to the Wailing Wall.

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago

A question for the Trump supporters: There does not seem to be any disagreement that Trump has engaged in grossly immoral conduct. Is there anything he could do that would be so completely beyond the pale that you would abandon him, or was he really telling the truth when he said his base wouldn’t care if he shot someone in broad daylight? (And I don’t mean change his political positions; I mean engage in bad conduct.)

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

Of course. Everyone – male or female, politician or simple citizen – is capable of committing a crime worthy of the death penalty.

We don’t have the option of a candidate who has no past immorality. Trump’s opponent often expresses her desire to be unburdened from her past. By and large, her request has been honored.

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

So, just to be clear, you’ll support Trump so long as he doesn’t commit a death penalty offense?

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

If even half of what is claimed about him on MSNBC were true, that would be disqualifying too.

Is there any hypothetical grossly immoral conduct on the part of his opponent which would convince you that Trump would be the less terrible choice in November?

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

I should have specified that I am not just talking about sexual immorality; one of Trump’s court cases established that he stole from a children’s cancer charity, which I consider pretty immoral too. As is his having been a con artist for most of his professional career. As is him sending a mob to the Capitol on January 6 to try to prevent certification of the election, whether or not it technically amounted to an insurrection. As is his repeated attacks on law enforcement. As is his mocking of the disabled and war heroes. The fact is, we’ve never had… Read more »

Andrew Lohr
Andrew Lohr
1 month ago

As I’ve posted before, if Paul could ‘vote’ for Nero because he expected Nero, evil as he was, to do a better job than Jerusalem on the issue at hand, then Christians can ‘vote’ for Trump (or Harris) without admitting them to communion if they come to a church unless they repent. And can vote for a 3rd party, showing the old parties where some votes and ideas can be found. And can choose not to vote. //// I wouldn’t describe the Trump vs Harris choice as the lesser of two evils, but as the greater of two great evils.… Read more »

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

Good to hear that you are considering a third party vote.

Have you read Jack Smith’s original indictment of Trump for the post-election efforts to challenge the election results on Jan 6th?

It lays out in some detail a few of the many arrangements which Trump and his legal team made in the two months prior to Jan 6th in preparation for formally challenging the certification that day.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Any thoughts on this freak being Trumps spiritual advisor for a time?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-adviser-pastor-robert-morris-confesses-sexual-behavior-rcna157474

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Morris was one of two dozen members of an “evangelical executive advisory board”. The purpose of the board was to offer Trump political advice on appealing to evangelical voters. From the linked article, it’s not clear if Trump ever actually met this fellow in person.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Need more proof?

IMG_7429.png
John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Looks like Trump attended one of the meetings of the “evangelical executive advisory board” to hear some political advice.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Aren’t these sexual deviants and pedophiles the whole reason voting for the left can never happen?

Maybe wipe your own butt before worrying about other people’s doodoo.

Ken B
Ken B
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

The difference is the left think such sexual proclivities a good thing, whereas the pastor is committed to abstaining from them. The fact he didn’t makes him a hypocrite, but it does not undermine the standard he ought to have been following.

It never ceases to amaze me how irate atheists can get at the sexual abuse carried out by ‘ministers’ of the institutional church when they don’t believe in the sex ethic they should have kept in the first place.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Ken B

You don’t believe in a sexual ethic either Kenny boy. So long as you hear a voice in your head you’re convinced is god, or an ancient book says so, you would do anything it says right? You are the weak willed one here. Cheers boyo 🍻

Ken B
Ken B
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

You have a remarkable ability for getting things wrong.

Ken B
Ken B
28 days ago
Reply to  Chris

It would be nice to know. I’m outside of the States and received the message Unavailable for legal reasons.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 month ago

Think for a second about what pro-lifers believe, what Kamala promotes, and ask yourself how your line of questioning shows any point at all.

Would you vote for a thief over a slaver? I think you would. So too would many vote for a womanizer over an infanticide advocate. It isn’t inconsistent or irrational, you just are looking at the race under your own presumptions, not the other side.

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, so would it be an accurate statement of your position that you would vote for Mussolini if it would end abortion? Because from my perspective, that’s the choice. As I already said earlier, Trump already sent a mob to the Capitol to try to block the certification of an election that he lost. He already tried to use the military and the Justice Department to suppress dissent but was blocked by generals and Justice Department employees who did their job and told him no. I’m worried less about his policies — though I do disagree with most of them… Read more »

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

Trump and his legal team spent the two months following the 2020 election creating the most serious election challenge since 1876. They recruited senators, congressmen and alternate electors. They drew up detailed plans for challenging each swing state’s election procedures in Congress. The process consumed thousands of billable hours.

On Jan. 6th, Congress started debate around 1pm with discussion of how Arizona conducted the election. The debate on Arizona’s election was ongoing an hour later when the breach abruptly ended discussion. When proceedings resumed, shaken congressmen abandoned debate and certified the results.

So, from the Capitol breach, cui bono?

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

What happened with that independent Arizona recount? Oh that’s right, nothing.

Kathleen M. Zielinski
Kathleen M. Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

John, despite the noise the Trump partisans were making, the Congressional votes to deny certification were never there. And the reason the shaken congressmen abandoned debate is that they finally had shoved in their face the consequences of two months of flat-out lies by the Trump campaign about the election having been stolen. It’s one thing to flap your jaw about a stolen election when nothing will come of it, but when your words conjure up a real mob that is threatening to lynch the vice president and prevent a core government function from taking place, well, at that point… Read more »

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

Does it seem plausible that Trump would deliberately send a leaderless, unarmed mob to the Capitol to short-circuit the elaborate and very expensive plans he’d paid his legal team to carefully work out?

The odds of success for that expensive plan were indeed low but it was the best shot he had. Could the odds of success for an unarmed mob with no idea of what to do once they occupied the building be anything other than zero?

Who would trade a plan with low odds of success for a course of action with no hope of success whatsoever?

Kathleen M. Zielinski
Kathleen M. Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

John, before we even get to that question, there is a more basic issue: Trump has now acknowledged that he knew he lost the election. Yet he was willing to put the country through hell in an attempt to hold on to power. When you lose an election, people with any ethical scruples do what Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bush Pere did: You acknowledge that your lost, you call for national unity, and you do what you can to get the new administration off to a solid start, because that’s what it means to put the country ahead of… Read more »

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

Does anyone think there was a plausible chance of success for the mob? They were unarmed and directionless. Most had probably never set foot in DC before that day. Their main activity once inside was to take selfies or say prayers.

Further, having a mob occupy the Capitol was wholly incompatible with conducting a reasoned discussion. It really was an either/or situation. They didn’t even end up delaying the final vote by much. The hours they were inside would have otherwise been spent debating election irregularities for each disputed state.

In retrospect, who benefitted from avoiding that debate?

Kathleen M. Zielinski
Kathleen M. Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Ultimately, no one benefitted. Everyone lost.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

“Everyone lost.”

On this, we can agree.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Extreme copium derangement syndrome. Not sure there’s much to do here.

Recommend therapeutic fist shaking at either FBI or CIA, and to rewatch 2000 Mules.

John Middleton
John Middleton
29 days ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

That the mob was a mob is hardly a defense of the mob, or Trump.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
29 days ago
Reply to  John Middleton

He certainly dropped the ball on contingency planning. He had intended to be at the Capitol himself. Had the Secret Service not prevented him from going, the mob would never have formed.

Unfortunately, unbeknownst to him, while he was still speaking the days events had already begun. The pipe bombs were discovered. The first police line was breached. The temporary fencing around the lawn was rolled away. The noose was attached to the scaffold. The temporary TV tower was taken over by instigators.

Do you know what jail sentences the men who did all those things were given?

John Middleton
John Middleton
29 days ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

Some kind of jail sentence, one would think. No, I don’t believe Trump was all about avoiding trouble.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
29 days ago
Reply to  John Middleton

AI now rivals search engines for answering questions like this. You can type the following questions into your favorite AI:

“How many years in jail, for the events of Jan 6th, 2021, were given to the…”

“…man who placed the pipe bombs?”
“…men who built the platform with the noose?”
“…man who removed the plastic fencing around the Capitol lawn?”
“…man who scaled the temporary TV tower and used a bullhorn to urge people forward?”

If you add up all their sentences, I can guarantee you’ll be shocked at the magnitude of the final number.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
26 days ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

To wrap up, I’ll confess that the questions above are, in a sense, trick questions.

The shocking magnitude of the sum of these men’s sentences is zero. Not one of the men who placed the pipe bombs, built the gallows, removed the plastic fencing or occupied the TV tower with a bullhorn were sentenced to a day in jail. None have been charged for the crimes they committed.

After breaking the law in a city crisscrossed by security cameras, none of those men has even been identified by the FBI.

What explains this? Incompetence? Indifference? Or something else?

Chris
Chris
28 days ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

This wishcasting is so cute 😻

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
28 days ago
Reply to  Chris

If you’re not comfortable with AI yet, you can also use traditional search engines to ferret out the answers.

Jill L Smith
Jill L Smith
1 month ago

I think we have to make distinctions. I don’t think the people on this board who plan to vote for Trump would go along with the very distasteful AI images that hardcore Maga people keep posting on Twitter. Trump with angel wings. Trump presiding over the Last Supper. And the one that really makes me wince, an image of Trump superimposed on Christ on the cross. A picture of Trump with the caption “And the word became flesh.” A picture of Trump with the words “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” Those Trump supporters could… Read more »

human
human
1 month ago

In my opinion, if Satan were running on the Republican ticket, the average evangelical would find a way to justify a vote for him.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 month ago

Your question lacks necessary definitions.

I’ve never liked Trump. I didn’t vote for him in 16, did in 20, and will in 24. Do I qualify for the question?

What does “abandon” mean? I already don’t like him and am voting for him due to a lack of viable alternatives. If he murdered someone, then I would support him going to prison, which would disqualify him from running, hopefully granting me a viable alternative.

The reason the present charges don’t perform this task is the present charges are not only not credible, but themselves criminal in their formulation.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

Mr. Wilson, Trump recently made comments regarding the Florida six-week abortion ban, saying it is “too short” and would like to see more weeks added. In other words, he is OK with more abortions, that is, until he changed his mind, and now supports the ban. This of course are the actions of the consummate politician, testing the political winds, and then changing course. No better than the opposition. As one letter writer put it last week…. We are dealing with an “unprincipled man.” He really doesn’t have any convictions, only political expediency. We all know this to be true,… Read more »

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

This was Trumps spiritual advisor if it makes you feel any better. It shouldn’t.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-adviser-pastor-robert-morris-confesses-sexual-behavior-rcna157474

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Chris, Feel better about what? Can you elaborate?

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Interesting all the finger pointing going on but none of them point out the demons in your own church.

The hypocrisy is just, so sweet 😋

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris
Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Chris, My question was not a jab? I really don’t understand your feel better reply. Please don’t assume everyone is out to get you. Please elaborate so I can understand. Please read my original post however, prior to elaborating to make sure you understood me. Thank you

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob, Chris does not come here for adult conversation; he comes here to pee in the sandbox. As, on the right, do fp and cherrera. And I say that as one who is probably more in agreement with Chris on most issues than I am with you. I appreciate the opportunity to exchange views with other grownups that I don’t agree with. I occasionally learn something that way, and I much prefer that to an echo chamber. But if that’s what you’re looking for, then neither Chris, fp nor cherrera will fit the bill. Up to you if you want… Read more »

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

Since you and Chris are more aligned but your more adult, then please let me know if you see any deficiencies in my original post above (22 hours ago), understanding that I do have a conservative worldview which will not be changing. Can we both, at least, agree that neither side in this election cycle are people of character? That political expediency is what drives them? And, that neither would be good for the country?

Last edited 1 month ago by Rob
Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob, in terms of their character, I trust both Trump and Harris about as far as I could throw Air Force One. I see the following differences between them that make me inclined to vote Harris: Harris is actually engaged in policy; for Trump it’s a grudge match. I don’t trust Trump to not dismantle and undermine democratic norms and institutions when they get in the way of his personal self interest. The mere fact that he sent a mob to the Capitol to try to stop the election certification rather than concede the result, as every other losing president… Read more »

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

So, the difference btw us is, I’m not willing to vote for either side and you’re willing for vote for someone you don’t trust. I do understand we’re going to get one side or the other, regardless. My decision however is to force better choices in the future, (if we can even keep it going long enough to have a future) by not voting, and freely and willingly give the election over to the other side in protest. In other words, I’m willing to risk the immediate future for a more long term view. A risk for sure, but one… Read more »

Kathleen Zielinski
Kathleen Zielinski
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob, it’s a matter of degree, and also a question of what specific types of things I don’t trust them with. Harris may well have slept her way to the top, and may have also helped herself to public money from time to time, and probably plays fast and loose with the truth when it suits her. But I’m not worried that she’ll undermine our democratic institutions themselves. I’m confidant that if she is elected, when she leaves office our form of government and the freedoms in the Bill of Rights will mostly be intact. I don’t have that confidence… Read more »

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago

I know of no one planning to vote for Trump would be doing so if they believed he was a threat to democracy or the Bill of Rights.

The key evidence for the perceived threat is January 6th. Might it be possible that the same press which ignored (or publicly denied) Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline, has also been ignoring problems with the official narrative of the events of that day?

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

You do realize there are plenty of evangelists, probably some in this chat that despise the Bill of Rights? So right off the bat, incorrect.

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

I didn’t realize that. Who do you have in mind?

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

C Jay Engel, Andrew Isker, Joel Webbon…

What’s Doug’s take on the Bill it Rights I wonder?

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Google provides no information of the first two gentlemen’s views on the Bill of Rights. Joel Webbon once expressed a certain wistfulness for the concept of a Christian monarchy but I found no formal statement from him against the Bill of Rights itself.

A quick search of this site shows that our host here is a great fan of the Bill of Rights and is adamantly opposed to those who would modify it.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  John Callaghan

My mistake. It’s the civil rights act they want to abolish. So they are racist on top of being anti democratic. A distinction without a difference imo.

Andrew Trauger
Andrew Trauger
1 month ago

Start by removing the cell phones. Permanently. Then the video games, laptops, and TVs. Screens aren’t sinful any more than kitchen knives, but they sure can be abused in lethal ways.
Next, have adult conversations with them. Pull them into whatever the adults are doing, whether that’s preparing dinner, changing the oil in the car, or playing a round of Hearts.
Toddlers learn to talk by hearing their parents talk to them. Teens relearn to talk by having someone lift their chins out of their laps and talk to them…again.

Andy

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Trauger

Start by removing the cell phones. Permanently. Then the video games, laptops, and TVs. Screens aren’t sinful any more than kitchen knives, but they sure can be abused in lethal ways.”

So can books, songs, and fireside conversations.

I moderate my children’s content very actively, moreso than most, but categorizing by medium is deeply silly. Playing chess on a board is not morally superior to chess on a tablet.

Andrew Trauger
Andrew Trauger
1 month ago

@Lance

Cursing is a sin, but the middle finger isn’t a curse. Not even in sign language. See the post from Pastor Matt and Doug’s response. The F-word is a taboo word, not an actual curse word.

Fredericka Lohr
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Trauger

Obscene hand gestures are a very big thing in pagan idolatry. When people tell you who they are, believe them. When Alcibiades mutilated the Herms, he was offending some people’s religious sensibilities. Very revealing incident, when the question comes up, what religion some folks subscribe to.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 month ago

Obscene hand gestures are a very big thing in pagan idolatry.”

So are feasts. I suppose you never eat large meals with family either.

You know who else breathed air? Hitler!

You need to make an argument about the thing itself. Pointing out that British soldiers wore the color red and so do the Kansas City Chiefs does not tie the Kansas City Chiefs to Britain. This is pure unreason.

Fredericka Lohr
1 month ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If you read The Golden Bough, you’ll discover enough obscene gestures, pantomimed and simulated sex acts to satisfy even the Moscow crowd. Why? Purportedly to improve agricultural productivity, but it certainly never did that. No, because of their carnality, they did this to please themselves. Just like you folks do. Like them, you believe your public displays of carnality have a religious significance. You can’t defeat paganism by becoming a pagan.

Nathan Smith
Nathan Smith
1 month ago

Joel,
I was taught the art of conversation with adults by my father who constantly involved me in business discussions (mostly as a listener), talking to me about adult themes (history, politics, math, women not as jokes but how to find a godly one), etc.
My kids are now nearing their teenage years and have been observed to have adult conversation patterns by quite a few folks with the same type of teaching.
I’d suggest the same. Bring them along, and talk to them as adults.

Andrew Lohr
Andrew Lohr
1 month ago

Joe re cost of college–might look at Bear’s Guide to Earning Degrees in non-traditional ways. If it’s not current, get an old one and use it to search the web for what people can do now.

David Anderson
1 month ago

I think that a question lots of people will have about CREC circles is if getting any nearer to them means that your regular controversy du jour will now be over what is and isn’t vulgar language and behaviour. Yes, as Douglas Wilson says in his previous post, he’s written a whole book to lay out his beliefs and approach, and believes it’s all justified because it’s the approach (he argues) of Jesus, the apostles and the prophets. But I observe that Jesus, the apostles and the prophets weren’t continually discussing with their fellow Israelites/believers as to why they were… Read more »

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  David Anderson

You can’t actually know what Jesus and the prophets spent most of their time discussing. Of all the words they spoke, scripture records very few of them.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
1 month ago

A question for the Kamala supporters: There does not seem to be any disagreement that Harris has engaged in grossly immoral conduct. Is there anything she could do that would be so completely beyond the pale that you would abandon her? And I don’t mean change her political positions (which she does all the time); I mean engage in bad conduct.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago

Your boy loving dead troops again 🤣

IMG_7425.jpeg
Kathleen M. Zielinski
Kathleen M. Zielinski
1 month ago

Ah yes, from fp, the liar, who in the previous thread falsely accused me of having said something or other about every Republican since Eisenhower and then ignored multiple requests to tell me what exactly he was talking about. You want to justify your claim, or maybe admit that you just made it up?

And as to your question to Kamala supporters I already answered that above in my last response to John Callahan. If you didn’t get it the first time I’m not going to repeat myself.

J
J
27 days ago

FP lies so regularly and dramatically that I sometimes wonder if he has some sort of personality disorder.

Robert
Robert
1 month ago

Pastor Wilson, I love you and your ministry. You are a model to me for wanting to be more and more familiar with the whole Bible, comparing scripture together, finding application all through the Bible for “practical” wisdom in life like John Piper does. I think like Spurgeon(?) said of John Bunyan to the effect, “if you cut him he would bleed Bible”. I really appreciate your wisdom in applying the Bible to problems and decisions of life. You are a model to me from a distance as to how a Pastor/Elder shepherd’s the flock under Christ. You get in… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Robert Wood
Heather
Heather
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert

I appreciate this comment. I wrote the above letter. I think Pastor Wilson was sarcastically thanking me for defending Moscow to friends and family in his response, which was a bit of a bummer because I love and respect him, and it was dismissive. I definitely don’t think they need my defenses, but as you are saying, the ad is unbecoming to the college. We have sung the praises of NSA frequently and have hoped to send our kids there. We’ve donated. We’ve sent our kids to their conference. It is a college, and not a person, but the ad… Read more »

Heather
Heather
1 month ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

Okay, glad to hear that!

Wanderer
Wanderer
1 month ago

Doug, you were recently on Tucker Carlson’s show. Last night he had a guest, Darryl Cooper, AKA Martyr Made, who spent much of his two hours spreading what you call “lies” about World War II. He said Churchill was the real villain, that Hitler wanted peace, and that most of the Jews that died only because the Germans weren’t prepared to handle large numbers of prisoners of war. And I don’t believe he said anything that would lead one to believe that six million Jews died. Tucker says Cooper may be the “most honest popular historian” out there.  You say “lies” like Cooper… Read more »

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Wanderer

How about just giving Doug the finger?

Big boy can’t use his $2 words so he has been reduced to childish gestures.

IMG_7430.png
Wanderer
Wanderer
1 month ago

Doug, you were recently on Tucker Carlson’s show. Last night he had a guest, Darryl Cooper, AKA Martyr Made, who spent much of his two hours spreading what you call “lies” about World War II. He said Churchill was the real villain, that Hitler wanted peace, and that most of the Jews that died only died because the Germans weren’t prepared to handle large numbers of prisoners of war. And I don’t believe he said anything that would lead one to believe that six million Jews died. Tucker says Cooper may be the “most honest popular historian” out there.  You say “lies” like… Read more »

Jake
1 month ago

Fred, I would strongly encourage you to read a book by Doug’s parents called How To Be Free. by Jim and Bessie Wilson. You can get it from Community Christian Ministries. The book has a couple of chapters that will help you. I am not saying that it will fix you, but it will help you. I have hyperlinked the site on my name.

Laura
Laura
1 month ago

Book recommendation on social skills: You could start with something basic like How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Some common grace helps, if you don’t take it to an extreme.

Fredericka Lohr
1 month ago
Reply to  Laura

Excellent book.

Jake
1 month ago
Reply to  Laura

Contact your local Toastmasters club and ask about juvenile speech training opportunities.

John Dekker
John Dekker
1 month ago

I’m afraid your censor missed one of the occurrences in Pastor Matt’s letter.

Brendon
Brendon
1 month ago

Pastor Matt. I think your comments on the F word were gay. Please use your theory to apply the appropriate meaning.

Fredericka Lohr
1 month ago

Could be that a “hundred circling camps” don’t work for the Priapus-worshippers, but practical-minded people can at least add a yoni to the lingam. Circles rule.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 month ago

I’ve been without access to a full keyboard for some time, and loathe typing on my phone. I found a brief window to come and say the NSA ad was excellent, and the people generating scandal around it are precisely why the west has fallen in the first place. It wasn’t the rainbow flags or the feminists or the socialists, it was the sincere Christians more concerned with being more pious than the Christian next to them than the world around them.