Letters and Replies That Will Satisfy Everyone

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

Jake

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

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

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

Lance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your article on “7 Theses for Educating Your Daughter” is pretty misogynistic, don’t you think?

Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joel

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

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

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

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

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

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