Suggesting a Need to Listen More Closely
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
Alejandro, I am afraid you have me mixed up with another Doug Wilson. I have no doubt that he ascribed to the beliefs you mention.
A Couple Family Matters
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
Marisel, I would maintain a relationship with him at that superficial level. But what you are investing in is simply a maintenance of contact, and are not cultivating any depth of relationship. Use your visits to give you material in your prayers for him. Don’t try to force the door open, but pray for an open door.
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
Bek, it sounds as though your mom has made peace with some things that you cannot in good conscience make peace with. Your first duty in this is to protect your kids, and it sounds like you are doing a solid job with that. The thing you could pray about is whether you could maintain a long distance relationship with them—texting, phone, etc.—but with no visits until the kids are older. If they ask why, tell them.
A Range of Views on KDY
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,
Philip, I take your point, and understand it. Here is a link to an episode of Cross Politic, where we discuss the whole episode in more detail, and show a number of other clips from the floor of the GA. The bottom line is that I believe the only way the language that Brindle used could be taken as an inflammatory personal attack would be if the culture of the PCA had already decided that to critique him on racial reconciliation issues was already verboten.
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
August, thanks.
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
Eric, that would have been one way to go. Thanks.
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
Isaac, so then the question would be this. Under this understanding of decorum, was the apostle Paul out of order when he confronted Peter at Antioch, charging him with cowardice and hypocrisy?
The Regulative Principle
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
Josiah, I would ask him to explain the precise nature of the difference between Old Testament worship and New Testament worship. There were instruments used in praising God in the Old Testament. Where is his express warrant for lumping instruments in with the blood sacrifices instead of grouping them with other aspects of worship which continue? Where does the New Testament tell him to take the instruments out?
Burk Parsons
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
CC, I read the story. My central view is that things like this ought not to be adjudicated online in stories like this. Some of the charges seemed weighty and some of them struck me as absurd, and all of them struck me as none of my business. I would hope that the PCA does a good job with it.
That’s a Possibility
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
Andrew, thanks. And good luck.
A Jab at Cessationists
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
SDB, as someone with the gift of discerning spirits, I find that this letter comes, not from the Spirit of God, but rather from the spirit of lost car keys and popcorn gluttony.
Book Recommendation?
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
Seth, try this.
What Ya Gotta Do
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
Jeff, situations like this are increasingly common. If you both agree in principle, and if you are taking tangible steps to make sure this is only temporary, I wouldn’t worry about it. Just make sure you don’t “adjust” to it. As for tips on how your wife can prioritize children and home while working, I am afraid I don’t know enough details to say. I can say that you should pitch in more at home (also as a temporary measure) to give her room to come up with creative ways to make good use of her time at home. If she is working outside the home, and when at home it is always playing catch-up, that’s not good. If you situation has you dislocated, make sure that both of you are dislocated.
The last Doug response: help out in the home if your wife is working, but make sure it’s temporary…you don’t want her to think you’ll keep doing the housework forever! Hogwash – help all the time…you’re partners in life.
I wonder if the letter sender works in a public school as well. Seems like Doug and his ilk want to shut public schools down, but they don’t acknowledge the MANY Christians that go to or work in and for public schools and how their rhetoric and actions affect them.
Of course not. He worships money over all. Doesn’t want to pay taxes, and wants you to pay for his subpar education program with non certified educators.
The Peter and Paul comparison is misguided because Peter and Paul did not previously and willingly bind themselves to abide by a set of detailed rules governing their discourse.
The problem people should be having is with using Robert’s Rules to control ecclesiastical discourse, not with DeYoung for following them after agreeing to do so by means of accepting the moderator’s chair.
Our proprietor would suddenly care a lot about decorum if people started interrupting his sermons with accusations of malicious intent over, I don’t know, playing footsie with blood and soil Nazis via a series of non sequiturs. (They’d be correct to do so: the 5th Commandment does not require us to adopt “blood and soil” politics, which is a term invented by German ethnonationalists. It has no other origin point into our language, no groups besides ethnonationalists have ever used it as a slogan. Similarly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either home or hearth, and everything to do… Read more »
… you took the words right out of my mouth…. I said basically the same thing in my own comment before I saw yours! (but I love Doug Wilson anyway :)
Well, if 700 PCA elders would prefer to replace bro Ince as head of MNA, and IF they can find a replacement they think would do better, they COULD, as J. Gresham Machen did, set up an alternative board.
Decorum–maybe the claim that bro Ince would be afraid in a white group was offensive? Partiality and exclusion are actions, but fear is a motive.
Hindsight may be 20/20, but what to say about bro Ince with about 60 seconds to say it? “I want to hear Mr Ince respond, for himself, to the reasons quite a few of us hesitate to give him another term. If he now knows how to take care of these matters, if they need care, what, briefly, are his plans? One, has he spent more money than he had, and run up debt? Two, has he directed too much money to administration, and not enough to actual production? Three, has he met production goals? And let me add four:… Read more »
“Not to the extreme of requiring unisex bathrooms, but you know what I mean”
We do: white men get to decide which forms of segregation are required and which are prohibited.
You know, when you talk like that you come across as a mirror image of something you really don’t want to resemble.
How confident are you that you know what I do/don’t want to resemble? Many countries, including historically “Judeo-Christian” countries in Europe, feature unisex bathrooms and even mixed-sex bathrooms. I’ve been in some! There is no biblical prohibition against this, which is probably why it was also the historical practice in the USA: woman-only bathrooms are a 19-20th century invention… because they facilitated longer shopping sprees! Praise be to the gods of capitalism, from whom all blessings flow? Anyway, the bathrooms at many Reformed churches I’ve attended are unisex; we just take turns, respectfully, and the waiting areas are mixed sex.… Read more »
A bigot with an axe to grind, if you want me to be direct about it.
Axe to grind, certainly: I am opposed to racists in the church and those who give them support. This principle extends well beyond these immediate contexts, i.e. it does not apply only to the moody Moscovites. It is a large problem in Christendom, both historically and contemporaneously. I do understand that these paleo-Confederate snowflakes have the largest victimhood complexes on earth (despite controlling enough wealth and power to make Solomon blush. as the comedian Eddie Izzard once put it). But bigoted against whom? I understand that moves towards equality will look like oppression to those who were raised on white… Read more »
This comments section needs either stronger moderation or a block function available to participants.
Why?
What happened to freedom of speech? I guess this is Trumps America where you can get deported for speaking out against Israel.
What happened to freedom of speech? It mouthed off to freedom of association and got shown the door. On the off-chance anyone does not understand this basic tradeoff, there are three ways in which American society, in the broadest possible sense, should encourage free speech. The civil government must not act to suppress or punish ordinary expression of opinion, only the narrow and stable set of inherently-wrong speech acts Powerful centralized platforms, like newspapers or television or social media, should strongly minimize their suppression of ordinary opinions, since they have an unusually strong near-monopoly on effective communication More diffuse groups… Read more »
Re 2, none of the things you mentioned are near-monopolies, so let’s extend the logic: Should Canon+ platform atheists? Should for-profit businesses put Marxists on their Boards? Should universities put astrologists on their Boards?
Should also mention: the Fairness Doctrine used to be in place to create the “ordinary opinions” ecosystem you want.
The religious conservatives in the GOP killed it. They wanted echo chambers and censorship. They got it.
We seem to be in violent agreement, other than your unjustified sideswipe blaming “religious conservatives” for the losses of free speech norms, and your curious assertion that e.g. Facebook does not have a stronger and more dangerous monopoly on speech than any US state.
— I said “Fairness Doctrine”, which was not a “norm”. — As for free speech norms, I grew up in religious communities with no such norms. On the contrary, speech was more strictly regulated in those communities than any others I have ever been in. NSA does not have a free speech policy on its campus, it explicitly prohibits expressions of liberalism on pg 10 of the Student Handbook — and requires a signed pledge to that effect — and further prohibits a wide range of speech alongside “idiosyncratic” dress (like having wrinkled clothes; shoeless feet are explicitly prohibited on… Read more »
Needless wrangling over subcategories. Legal doctrines are obviously “norms”, but a particular kind. There exist examples, etc. Sure, whatever. Tedious black-and-white misrepresentation of my actual arguments, plus unwarranted ad hominem. It’s actually false, too: I’ve spent maybe 15 hours in the past 5 years scrolling Facebook, and other social media has little hold on me as well. What I was describing was the social effect that hundreds of millions of addicted, algorithm-controlled users have. You don’t actually disagree materially, except perhaps that you think Facebook, YouTube, et al should be allowed complete freedom to restrict speech as much as they… Read more »
Your 3: yes of course I think Facebook should be allowed to moderate their platform however they wish (except for content that is explicitly illegal, obv). Because they are a private entity and they do not at all control a monopoly on political speech, or any other kind of speech: 30% is not anywhere close to “near-monopoly” and it isn’t pedantic to say so. Nor does 30% of political discourse happen on Facebook, a tiny minority of it does. The “small” vs “large” distinction is arbitrary, in the eye of the beholder, and follows from no principle. Voluntary associations are… Read more »
I don’t know why you’re working so hard to try to argue that the size and power of a group is not the only factor in the legitimacy of their control of speech and/or religious acts. Obviously there are other factors; why would you think I disagreed? (There’s also an interesting implicit contradiction. Earlier you tried to slam “religious conservatives” as having been responsible for the loss of the Fairness Doctrine, but now you admit that you wouldn’t agree with that doctrine if it was still around. So, we’re bad people for dropping a principle that you also want to… Read more »
a) Dealing with your lame args is no effort for me at all, but I appreciate the concern. b) You said size matters; I said that’s arbitrary. If you don’t like the discussion of size then don’t introduce it as a topic. c) The Fairness Doctrine never applied to private entities, only public airwaves, I think you have some reading to do before discussing this further. d) You cannot possibly dislike “the moderation of all social media”, because it is all *extremely* moderated — algorithmically — for profit-making purposes and to curry political favor. There’s no real way to oppose… Read more »
Totally disregard the second point but go off.
I’d be fine with the ability to block, thanks. That’s no infringement on freedom of speech.
Do you have such little self control to just not read something?
I’d like to read the comments here without wading through a lot of nonsense. It’s not a matter of self-control but of not wasting time.
Are you threatened by the idea of a block function you’re not required to use yourself?
Threatened? Please. I’m here to see what goofy stuff people pop off about. And still waiting for Doug to say something as funny as recommending some dude talk to his girlfriend’s father about his micropenis.
I’ve been thinking for a while that I should suggest Pastor Wilson set up a Discourse instance (or have someone at Canon do it, or whatever). It’s forum software with much better moderation, designed to be mostly led by notable community members. The ability for our dozens of regulars to flag and eventually remove posts would help a lot to get rid of our known trolls, and also help the marginal posters stay on track. (Even Armin or Buster Keaton or Barnabas or E have a few useful things to say.)
Would you advocate for this blog to be MORE of an echo-chamber? I love Jesus but have a different interpretation of scriptures and how to navigate the world…should that exclude me from posting on this blog? From “our” side, y’all are the trolls, so… I believe Doug’s beliefs, opinions and communications are dangerous and misleading…so I voice my opinion here. There are a variety of ways to view the world and the Bible…Doug acts as if he knows all and speaks the Truth…and I argue that things are much more complicated and nuanced than he admits. We should be grappling… Read more »
To be clear, I don’t consider you a troll. I do consider that you get off track from time to time. Individual posts may warrant removal, and other posts may warrant encouraging feedback (which Discourse also features via likes, etc). (This particular post is fine, and doesn’t deserve any moderation.) A troll is not someone who is merely volubly wrong about the facts, or even insulting to others from time to time, but someone who is deliberately engaging in bad faith. They are not interested in the truth, but in spreading propaganda for particular effect, or just having malicious fun… Read more »
Barnabus the Nazi has useful things to say? 👀
Doug,
Funny! (And did you see those car keys lying around anywhere?)
Blessings.
SDB
No; he didn’t expect God to tell him where they were, and God didn’t.
(But God did tell Jackie Pullinger which Hong Kong high rise a man she needed to see lived in.)
Pastor Wilson, I love you and have great respect for you and have benefitted greatly by your books, blogs, responses to letters, youtube videos, articles, etc… I especially hold you in high regard regarding Marriage and Family..
…. *but* ….. I think you are confusing categories with your response to Isaac.
The Apostle Paul was not operating under the guidelines of Robert’s Rule’s of Order… But Kevin De Young was bound by them, right?
But you’re the man anyway.
Doug, There are a few key differences. First what Robert just helpfully mentioned, as well as the context and manner of Paul’s rebuke. First Robert is absolutely right, Paul is not under the Rule’s of Order. He has not submitted himself to them or to a moderator. Second, Paul’s rebuke is “to his (Peter’s) face” in Galatians 2:11. Not an indirect rebuke, I would be interested if Brindle would have said to the man’s face what he he was willing to say to a microphone in front of many allies. Also Paul is not rebuking Peter during a formal parliamentarian… Read more »