Letters From the Likes of You

This is in response to your suggestion in that podcast to force Muslims to convert to Christianity (amongst other things you want to do to them): Read the First Amendment! And if you don’t like laws that foster tolerance of diversity, then YOU get out of this country and go to one that supports your beliefs!

Alejandro

Uncle Doug,
I am a first generation non-Pentecostal. The theology I was brought up in gives me no guidance for very practical matters and I’m still trying to find my way around presbyterianism.
My only brother is apostate. He is willing to have a relationship with me but on the shallowest terms and refuses to talk about spiritual matters.
If it was my parent, I would honor him anyways. If it was a friend, I would walk away.
What are my Christian duties to an apostate family member?

Marisel

I am a 36-year-old, married woman with 5 wonderful kids. About 9 years ago, I discovered that my dad was having an affair . . . but much more difficult than that, incidents included minors and he went to jail. My dad is now out of jail, has finished his probation and living happily with my mum in a tiny remote town they moved to (6+ hours away from their kids and 10 grandkids). I worked incredibly hard to restore and keep the relationship but on a visit to them last year, I noticed old habits and further discovered that my dad was in a dating website (in amongst other things) . . . this did not help build trust and when I delicately confronted the situation my mum told me its none of my business and its their marriage—why can’t we all just get along?
With an effort to give you long story, short—its been really hard to navigate what ‘honouring my folks’ looks like in this scenario. We’ve done counseling together and I’ve sought counsel privately on how to move forward . . . but it seems they really struggle to understand the boundary that we’ve had to put in place with our own kids etc, and its become a real sore point.
We are currently no longer speaking and that’s not in bad blood on my part, but out of necessity. But it’s really hard to navigate. It feels ‘wrong’ to stop communication with your parents but I have exhausted all avenues in trying to work things out and restore things—and I can’t help but wonder how I honour them through this?

Bek

The Lord has used your writings to edify me in many ways through the years, so I write both with gratitude for your work but also distress over your recent jab at Kevin DeYoung in “Shushed by the Moderator.” It’s a basic, well-known rule of parliamentary debate that while members can make forceful, pointed arguments for or against a measure, they must not attack or question the motives of another member. This is no silly Pharisaical rule, but an ancient principle reflecting scripture’s admonition not to “speak evil of dignities” (Jude 8). If even Michael the archangel dared not bring against the devil himself “a railing accusation” when contending about the body of Moses, how much more is it reasonable for an assembly of elders to require members to debate matters, rather than motives? At General Assembly, members were welcome to—and did—make an abundance of piquant biblical critiques of Irwyn Ince’s actions (several along the lines of your own post). Where Pastor Brindle crossed the line was to claim that Ince “believes he’s not safe” around white brothers—a suggestion that he would be allowed to make on his personal blog or in informal conversation, but not on the debate floor of GA. DeYoung did not “shush” Pastor Brindle. He merely submitted to the requirements of his duty as moderator, as he did shortly afterward when he likewise “shushed” those cheering and whistling when Ince was reelected.
These two posts—here and here—and both by brothers also opposed to Ince’s actions, provide additional context. I regard you as a brother and hope that you will be willing to acknowledge that your post was unfair to DeYoung. At the very least, anyone wishing to criticize him should first watch the entire period of debate over Ince’s reelection, not merely a 90-second clip.
Yours humbly,

Philip,

On July 1 an influential PCA pastor named Todd Pruitt posted on Facebook a hit piece targeting Doug Wilson as “misguided,” stating that according to Robert’s Rule the moderator DeYoung was well within his rights to silence Brindle. The only reason I care is because this Todd Pruitt leads one of the largest bodies in my county of Rockingham in Virginia. It is a literal hotbed of gnostic Doug haters and very much opposes any thought of Christian Nationalism. He has made our job of working the county towards Christ the King absurdity difficult.

August

My comment on Groff’s attack on you at X:
I found Wilson’s post, at https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/books/reformation-and-survival.html He links to the video, which Pastor Groff did not, and said,
“Pastor De Young made some pointed criticisms of his own. He said that Pastor Brindle was being intemperate, and that he lacked decorum. There was no argument involved in this, just a raw parliamentary assertion. It was an act of naked authority, a pronouncement. And this is what left so many viewers of that video clip blinking, and thinking to themselves something like wut?”
Somebody should have made a point of order and asked the Chairman (DeYoung) to retract his insult, and if he didn’t, should have appealed the ruling of the chair, I think. Is that the procedure by which to rebuke the chair when he breaks a rule?

Eric

I am by no means an expert in Robert’s Rules of Order. However, in the past ten minutes, I have done extensive research of a PDF template of the Rules. The question Rev. DeYoung is asking is not if he likes the speech, but rather if the speech is in accordance with the rules that govern the floor of GA.
Rule 43:21 states: “A member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate. If a member disagrees with a statement by another in regard to an event that both witnessed, he cannot state in debate that the other’s statement ‘is false.’ But he might say, ‘I believe there is strong evidence that the member is mistaken.’ The moment the chair hears such words as ‘fraud,’ ‘liar,’ or ‘lie’ used about a member in debate, he must act immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition.”
The moment Brindle says, “This is a denial,” he accused the director of MNA not only of being mistaken, as the rule allows for, but accuses him of denying the “sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ.”
The rules leave little leeway for DeYoung. He must act “immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition.”

Isaac

I have a friend who is convinced that instruments ought not be used in worship. His argument is that we are not sinning by doing something that God commanded us not to do, but that, like Nadab and Abihu with the strange fire in Leviticus, we are sinning by adding something to worship which had not been commanded. How would you respond to this?

Josiah

Many of us would love it if you would consider covering this story. We would love for you to weigh in on this investigation.

Concerned Christian

Whaddyathink of calling oneself a “nationalist Christian” instead of “Christian nationalist”? More emphasis on the Christianity.
“No, I’m not a Christian nationalist; I’m a nationalist Christian.” No, I’m not one of those racist, America-is-always-right people; I’m a Christian who is neither a globalist, nor an imperialist, nor a tribalist, loving my country but willing to criticize it as needed.
Bit harder to replace “Christian nationalism” with “nationalist Christianity,” but maybe “nation-loving Christianity”?
I like “Christian federalism” and used it at least once, but no one would know what it means. Close variants from “Christian nationalism” might be easier to understand, while still distancing oneself from the toxic corners of CN?
FWIW.
Love in Christ Jesus.

Andrew

Great post, with one noteworthy exception I see often in the Reformed world: it’s tota scriptura except for that cessationist carve-out we need to invent, in order to keep I Corinthians from upsetting our ecclesiastical formalism and magisterial pastoral beliefs.

SDB

Can you recommend any good books on the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, with a focus on how it connects with Matthew 24?

Seth

So you have said many times, and I agree, that a women’s priority should be in the home. How do you think this biblical priority can be balanced at the times when a woman needs to work as a financial necessity?
My wife and I have small children and I have been a teacher for years in a state where a teacher’s salary used to cut it, and where a teacher’s salary no longer cuts it. We agree in principle that she should be in the home with the children, and plans are in the works. Moving to a different state, me moving into a higher paying profession, etc. But these things take time and everybody needs food and a roof now.
So she and I both work and the children spend more time than I would like with their grandmother. Her desire is not to climb the corporate ladder but to help me get us to a place where she can be with the children more.
Would you say that this kind of arrangement is a sort of compromise with the feminist movement and the priorities of the zeitgeist or acceptable as a temporary situation (we hope)? And if it is how would you suggest a woman prioritize the children and the home if she must work?

Jeff