May Brings Both Flowers and Letters

Grace and peace to you. I am a Jesus follower living in Germany, originally from India. I love your sermons, and in one of them about children you mentioned that it is your church’s policy not to allow communion to a person who’s not been water baptised. I find it irreconcilable with what the Bible says about God, the sum of which is “rend your hearts, not your clothes”. When Jesus in John 6 says unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you, he didn’t say unless you first get baptised, and so on. Psalm 5 says, because of your unfailing love I can enter your house. It doesn’t say because I’m baptised in water. My point is mainly, water baptism is more ritual, the real repentance is of the heart, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is what all the gospels tell that Jesus came to do. So why do so many churches make baptism the door to God’s house and not their hearts? Why stand confident like the Pharisee (water baptised) who said God I’m not like that tax collector (who was heartbroken over his sin and didn’t dare look up). Would you rather have water baptised people who might or might not have truly repented vs. those who love Jesus with all their heart but for whatever reason have not been water baptised? I’ve nothing against water baptism but I find that as a prerequisite for church life, it is not the right filter, so to say—especially for those who for good reason are unable to get water baptised. Would love to know your thoughts if you’re so led.

Mohit

Grateful for you Pastor Wilson. In preparation to preach and teach on Protestantism, a couple of questions:
1) How true are some of the statistics that are saying that there huge numbers of Protestants converting to RC and EO?
2) What do you think are some of the reasons for such a phenomena?

Benjamin

You recently had a video where you half-jokingly affirmed that parents should teach kids to suppress their emotions. My daughter is turning 4, and while your wife’s book may address this (I do have it pre-ordered), my question is how to navigate the emotions of a 4-year-old. I do not want to stunt her or punish her for the onslaught of emotions now beginning, but I also know that what we do with her now will in fact train her how to handle her feelings in the future. There’s not “those 2 years didn’t count, ignore them” card we can play. So what do I do about bawling over her shoe being in the wrong place? How do I train her attitude during pouting obedience when the very concept of an attitude seems beyond her? How long do I let her cry, or does she get to cry as long as she feels like it? Looking for wisdom from the wizened and experienced. I and my future woman daughter thank you for your counsel.

Brandon

Crowd source question:
Does anyone know anything about The Crucible Project? There’s a few men in the church I attend who are involved with it. They treat it like a secret society and don’t answer question. Red flag . . .

JG

TLDR; what should we be praying for right now?
In 2024 many of us prayed daily for the miracle that happened in November. But during that season it was really easy to know what to pray for. Things like, that the election won’t be stolen, that the corruption in high places would be exposed and brought to justice, that the evil alliance between big tech and media and the deep state would be broken up. And obviously for God to mercifully give Trump and not Heels Up Harris.
God’s answers day-by-day in the months leading up to November were striking. One of the most striking answers was the incredible unity that formed between conservatives of many sorts. Even RFK Jr and Elon Musk joined the team.
Here we are two years later and the conservative movement is fragmenting like a clay pigeon before a 12 gauge.
You’ve put out some useful articles on the state of affairs (Candace, Tucker, and bizarre conspiracies oh my).
But it is still unclear to me how to be praying. In 2024 it was obvious. Today it’s less so.
Some are obvious—the passing of the Save act, etc.
Oh and the things we prayed for in 2024, and for which Trump was elected, are far from “in the bag.”
How then shall we pray?
Thanks

Michael

I know this may not get a response, but my heart is grieved and I am at a loss. Responding to article “ Devoured by Cannabis,” I am more than convinced than ever how smoking weed is sinful. My husband smokes regularly and has for many years (before becoming a Christian and continuing into his walk with the Lord). It has been an issue dating, engaged and married. We have 3 children and I am so burdened. We have discussed and it never goes well. He always says it’s “fine” and he has tried stopping or cutting back but this doesn’t last. I have prayed much about this and it doesn’t seem like he needs any convincing as he’s thinking he’s not sinning here, but needs a heart change. Aside for a total restoration from the Lord what more can be done? As a wife, do I have the jurisdiction to tell our pastor or an elder? I wouldn’t do this without him knowing but would this be my next move if another conversation does not work? I would appreciate nothing public states with my name in it . Thank you. Greatly encouraged by your ministry.

N

Re: In Honor of Ben Sasse. I’m glad for his spiritual advice, but I think if the exact same spiritual advice were given by Ted Cruz or the late Charlie Kirk (were either of them in the same boat suffering from such cancers), neither would be given the platforms Sasse has been given. He was and probably is still a Never Trumper. That’s his prerogative, of course, but it explains a lot of the large number of interviews and platforms.

Elizabeth

Re: UFO’s
I find this a fascinating topic.
Here is my take:
Can aliens exist?
(As in people-shaped objects with perhaps more appendages, exaggerated features and a propensity of slimy skin—but intelligent)
Reason, appreciation of beauty/music/words is limited to image bearers on earth
I have yet to see a symphony written by a sloth and conducted by a chimp.
Crush his head—the redeemer would be a descendant of Adam and Eve: thus human (image bearer) (Heb 2:14-17)
Painstakingly traced by Matthew and Luke.
Kinsmen Redeemer concept revealed in Ruth, Isaiah 59:20.
In short only descendants of Adam can be saved.
As you mentioned all creation groans—so Zotarians if they exist are groaning.
If said Zotarians are not descendants of Adam they cannot be saved. So that would be unjust. It is written somewhere that Jesus died once and for all—so he isn’t dying on Zotar again.
If they are descendants of Adam pre-flood space travel has to be invoked. As post-flood tech to do so demonstrably did not exist.
Pre-flood people were cross breeding. If evil plan to cross breed entire human race was successful—God would have lied in Gen 3. God cannot lie. Therefore flood. 8 made it across.
So space traveling pre-flood descendants of Adam are either not cross bred— meaning more than 8 were saved or they were cross bred—meaning they are not where the others were bound as per Peter.
For these reasons I hold aliens (the slimy people-esque kind) cannot exist.
And I agree with you—an angel fought a fallen angel for 28 days once—perhaps some sparks are visible at times.

Murk

Hi, RE Cherubim, Steampunk, ETC.
We don’t see what we think we see. I think Hume had something to say about this. I recall a walk in the woods here in Maine when I saw a movement in a bush next to the trail. At first, it looked like a scrap of black trash bag caught in the bush that the breeze was moving. As I got closer, it changed before my eyes into a baby black porcupine in the bush. I stood there amazed for a moment.
Defense lawyers make their living on this phenomenon: “Mr. Witness, you say you saw my client shoot Mr. Victim?” “Yes I did.” “So you saw the gun?” “Yes!” “What color was it? Dark or shiny?” “Uh, I’m not sure…” “Well, was it an automatic or a revolver?” “Uh, I’m not sure…” “OK, let me show you a gun (he shows Witness a revolver) Did it look like this?” “Yeah, that’s it!” “Thank you, Mr. Witness.” “Judge, I would like to point out that the gun my client was in possession of when arrested was not a revolver.”
Only Scripture provides truth we can trust.

Jack

On UFOs:
Thanks for connecting our secular ways of explaining UFOs to our own concoctions, which may be inventive and fancy, but in the end are utterly fabricated. And thanks for highlighting the scriptural narrative that is no less fancy but ultimately more real than any sci-fi story.
And why do we have all these stories? Some are just runaway imaginations from people with creative minds. Cool. Others are born of necessity: having deleted God from their equations of life, the universe, and everything, they are left with “42” as the answer. Which means if life evolved here, what’s to say it didn’t evolve somewhere else as well? I mean, a 1-in-1 quintillion chance of a protein spontaneously violating Francisco Redi’s law HERE must naturally mean it happened simultaneously all over the place.
But the man who has said “There is no God,” now has the unenviable task of coming up with something better to explain it all. Aliens, he says. Technologically advanced enough to visit us, he says. Kind enough to terraform us, he says, but mean enough to never stop by and say “howdy.”
“42,” he says. And all the people nodded and replied, “Gluck, gluck.”
For a long list of biblical reasons, I don’t think there’s mortal life anywhere outside of Planet Earth. The very notion destroys the Gospel . . . and I’m agin’ it.

Andrew

I recommend the book Alien Intrusion, by Gary Bates. It’s a thorough review of the whole topic from a Christian perspective. There seems to be ample evidence from abduction experiences that the entities interacting with humankind are no friends of the triune God.

Jennifer

Re “Cherubim, Steampunk UFOs…”
Besides hoaxes and fallen angels, UFOs feature a ginormous lot of plain mistakes, which Philip J. Klass wrote 3 books about—UFOs Identified, UFOs Explained, and UFO Abductions: A Dangerous Game (he also hit some hoaxes.) Blank’s UFO is Klass’s weather balloon, for example. The one I saw looked electrical (the emphasis of UFOs Identified.) Needn’t HURRY to angels if someone can’t ID something in the sky.

Andrew

A Few Questions About Church Life and Christian Practice
Grace and peace to you, Mr. Wilson.
I have a few questions I’d really appreciate your thoughts on. If possible, I’d especially value answers from a biblical perspective, particularly in relation to sin, holiness, and Christian responsibility. I’d also be grateful for your personal perspective, along with any practical advice you might offer.
1) Church finances and tithing
How much access should an ordinary church member (someone who is not an elder or church leader) have to information about the church’s finances?
How should this work in the case of a very small group of believers meeting together informally?
Do you generally favor financial transparency in the church, or do you think some financial matters should remain private?
Tithes are normally given to one’s home church, but how should that be understood if a church consists of both a main congregation and a mission church or church plant?
2) Age differences in marriage
Can a large age difference between spouses ever be considered sinful in itself?
More specifically, how would you view situations such as the following:
a) a 30-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl
b) a 35-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 20
c) a 40-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 25
d) a 45-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 30
e) a 50-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 35
f) a 55-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 40
g) a 60-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 45
h) a 65-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 50
i) a 70-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 55
j) a 75-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 60
k) an 80-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 65
l) an 85-year-old man and a woman between 15 and 65
And how would you view the reverse situation, where the woman is (much) older than the man? It seems to me that something along those lines may be implied in chapter 1 of the Book of Ruth (verses 11–13).

Antimony 3.0

Gerrymandering frustration
I am genuinely confused by your article on gerrymandering. Is it bad or not? If it’s bad then we should stop doing it. If it’s not bad then we shouldn’t talk about “ungerrymandering” places as if that’s anything but an accomplishment for partisanship. After all, in the same article you applaud “ungerrymandering” the south you criticize Indiana Republicans for not gerrymandering their state . . . If it’s just about raw political power and any level of gerrymandering is acceptable then I fear you’re begging a lot of questions, the first one that pops into my mind being, “Is it fair to say you believe the Republican Agenda is more important than representative democracy?”
“Gerrymandering is ok so long as it’s just a little bit” sounds pretty sleazy . . . I apologize, but I think that’s the word.
It’s easy to say, “but they do it to us”, but the Republicans control the Senate, the House, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court . . . If now isn’t the time to reform on favorable terms then maybe you’re being a little naïve to think your team is interested in reform at all? It reminds me of the magical invisible balance budget Republicans have promised me since before I was born . . . A cute lil lie told with a pat on my head so I feel better about endless war spending . . . “alas, Republicans only control all three branches of government so we can’t expect them to . . .”

KF

On gerrymandering, starting with county lines/town lines is a decent and simple approach, but there’s actually an approach I favor even more: crowdsourcing. There are a few ways to mathematically measure gerrymandering. Pick one, and pass a law that mandates that between elections the state MUST accept any submitted map that citizens submit that has a lower gerrymandered score.
Let the political nerds fight to submit gerrymandered maps in their favor, but each map will be less gerrymandered than the last…

Ian

Regarding Christians, Gerrymandering, etc.
One of the dainty morsels here, that, Lord willing, has narrowly avoided the crab nebula scenario. For the record, I would like to say we are far from unsuspecting, in fact, we have been extremely suspecting for a little while now, hence our prior amendment that took redistricting out of the direct control of the legislature.
Procedural shenanigans aside, this little fiasco has been a great illustration of one of the rules of deified democracy. A village of 100 people falls on hard times (for instance a Monday morning), and they hold a referendum wherein 51 voters decide it is high time to go door to door dispatching the other 49 and taking all of their stuff. When the 49 protest, it is pointed out that the people have indeed spoken, and it would be wrong to usurp the authority of the voters by doing something rash like going to court, or taking your family and escaping to the hills lest you be swept away.
As a final note, I would like to also point out that the commonwealth has had prior experience with mischievous governors, going back to before most other states were in diapers. This ain’t our first rodeo, but pray that it won’t be our last.

A Dainty Morsel

Re “Christians, Gerrymandering . . .”
Mostly agree, but remember, gerrymander unto others as you would have them gerrymander unto you.
Maybe red states could offer two sets of maps: one with at least some competitive districts, to be used if liberal-run states do the same for conservatives, and one wiping out dems, to be used if dems don’t shape up in 40 days or so. Good Christian Nationalist, theonomic, Biblical, numerological number.
And I know Abe Lincoln isn’t your favorite, and not to argue that point, the book “Lincoln’s Virtues” does point out that politics can be a full time profession (“capable of honor—Allan Drury)—I think you’d agree—and that Lincoln was very skillful at that job, whatever you think of his goals.
(The anti-Lincoln books I’m trying to read seem to leave out context I want for evaluation, and seem to assume bad motives. “Lincoln’s Virtues” does point out one virtue you share with him, and with our Lord Jesus Christ: not being pushed around by local culture. In a culture where heavy drinking, smoking, gambling, and fighting were ordinary, Lincoln eschewed all of these—while remaining very good company and not sourpussed. As a schoolboy he made his fellows stop torturing a turtle by putting hot coals on its shell.)

Andrew

Dear Pastor Wilson,
thank you very much for your response to my letter about helping kids reconcile after an unpleasant social situation; your advice was helpful and encouraging. I appreciate your taking the time every week to answer people’s letters! I also wanted to mention that I love how varied your blog is – I have found your perspective on serious or complicated topics to be very valuable, but I also enjoy the more lighthearted posts. Your “Weekly Round-up of Various Internet Mustangs” is one of my favorite things.
Very grateful for all your hard work!
May our heavenly Father bless you in all that you do.

Michelle

Pastor Wilson, I listened to a decades-old (early 90s?) talk you gave where you recounted each of your childrens’ conversion stories. You firmly stated that you refused to call them Christians until they made a convincing profession, to the point of telling your daughter that Jesus was not in her heart when she said that He was. I assume this talk came before you were paedo, and I wonder if that changed anything? As a father, I dearly want to get this right, without presuming wrongly in either direction, so what does this look like practically? Since we are looking for true heart conversion, does that mean I should not ask my children to pray at the dinner table, to sing the doxology, or to say amen until they have had an acceptable conversion experience? I’m not sure where my baseline assumptions about their faith (or lack thereof) should be. I’m truly curious whether you would advise fathers today to take the same approach of assumed-unregeneracy that you did?

Andrew

My wife and I have spent the past ten years debating the best analogy for the President Trump’s lack of decorum. She takes your view that “The president’s mean tweets are like him eating his steak off the end of his knife” at a fancy dinner (“In Honor of Ben Sasse”). I argue that he is more like a middle school boy strolling around the banquet hall with a smirk on his face, hocking loogies into the other guests’ drinks and giving them wedgies.
She and I at least agree that his rudeness is better than what the other guys are up to, namely, “poisoning the food while being really fastidious about the table settings.”
Incidentally, my wife insists that if I were from Idaho/Montana like she is—instead of northern Virginia—I’d more easily appreciate your version of the analogy. Perhaps. Though that possibility cuts the other way, too.

Patrick

In your experience when is it appropriate for a pastor to recommend that a member in good standing leave a church to find another church? Assuming that the member really is in good standing, not in open sin, and not creating division in the body, but does have serious disagreements over the methods and preferences that the pastors/elders are choosing? For example if the issues in question are causing the member to become frustrated and distrusting of the pastors is it ever appropriate for the pastor to recommend the member find another church that has the same kind of preferences? Our church is raising money for a new building and there are some people who disagree about the methods being employed. One of my good friends brought his concerns about this to the pastor and was told that he should find another church. This seems wrong to me. My friend doesn’t want to leave because there are many things he likes about the church. Most of the time I think the problem is that church members want to pack up shop and leave their congregation when they don’t like something. They can just go “church shopping.” But can there be the same kind of problem on the flipside where pastors don’t want to deal with members that have a difference of opinion and then ask them to leave “for their own good?”
Thanks for all you do!

Anon,

Off-topic question: I work for a large company that’s existed for decades. In that time, by accident and other circumstances, a number of employees have lost their lives on the job. The company annually holds a day of remembrance which includes a reading of this roster. I may be on unfirm footing here, but this seems a lot like veneration, possibly rising to the level of idolatry. I’d be grateful to hear your thoughts on this issue.

EM

I’m not responding to any particular blog post, I just have a question I’m interested in your answer. My question is how do you justify not being in the mainline Protestant churches? I believe that if conservatives in offshot conservative churches rejoined the mainline, you could become a majority overtime, as liberal churches tend to lose members much faster then conservative ones , and reclaim the institutional resources and heritage. However,more importantly I don’t see how you can justify this theologically as a confessional Calvinist. The Westminster confession chapter 25.2 says “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” And in the Belgic Confession, Article 28 “All therefore who draw away from the Church or fail to join it act contrary to the ordinance of God.” Calvin says “The more detestable are the apostates who delight in producing schisms in churches, just as if they wished to drive the sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves.” In Book IV, Chapter 1 he also says “He who out of hatred of the wicked breaks the token of that society treads a path that slopes to a fall from the communion of saints.” And “Because they think no church exists where there are not perfect purity and integrity of life, they depart out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked.” In Calvin, Institutes IV.1.13 he also says in Calvin, Institutes IV.1.12 “We are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline.” Calvin writing personally to crammer said “The members of the Church being severed, the body lies bleeding. So much does this concern me, that, could I be of any service, I would not grudge to cross even ten seas, if need were, on account of it.” If we look at the early church, the church fathers where very clear “If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Said by Ignatius of Antioch the disciple of John the apostle himself. Irenaeus said “Those who give rise to schisms are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war.”, Cyprian of Carthage said “He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother.” And from the same treatise on church unity: “Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ.”, and Augustine said “Those are wanting in God’s love who do not care for the unity of the church… the charity which covereth the multitude of sins is the special gift of Catholic Unity.” And crucially, “Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” , crammer said “All such as have been deceived either by mine example or doctrine, I require them by the blood of Jesus Christ that they will return to the unity of the Church, that we may be all of one mind, without schism or division.” Look at holy scripture we see in Jeremiah, that when Israel which is now the church, was sacrificing children to pagan gods, God did not tell Jeremiah to schism he told him to reform and change Israel, the apostles continued going to the temple even after they literally killed god , and only left when they were kicked out. Which brings me to my next point, the difference between you starting and church and the reformation is that , the Roman church bounded the reformers to sin and then excommunicated them — similar to what the temple did to the apostles— and then they didn’t even start a new church, they rejected Romes illegitimate jurisdiction over the already existing national churches and stayed in those national churches which already existed and had authority, similar to how early church jurisdiction worked. So in light of this how do you justify not being in one of the mainline churches when they only permit gay marriage, and don’t kick out people who disagree, would you not have a duty to stay and reform the mainlines? I’m genuinely asking ,where in your own confessional standards do you find warrant for what you’ve done?

Eli