For An April Fools Letters Feature, I Was Expecting More Weirdness

Greetings Pastor Wilson. I’d love to address your 21 theses on Christ’s covering, but I don’t have a blog, so perhaps in another place. One point and a few questions. Regarding #1 that “some things” in Paul’s letters are difficult to understand. This is a truth, the Scriptures say so (e.g. baptism for the dead?). But how is the headship of Jesus Christ hard to understand when you faithfully preach and teach continually on this very subject. Every minister, husband, and king, every man, must bow the knee and submit to Christ (Christ is the head of every man). And you teach that Christian sisters should scripturally acknowledge these principles, that men should be responsible heads of these sovereign spheres. In the church, Why Ministers must be Men. The home, Federal Husband. And in the civil magistrate, taught in your many books/blog addressing kingly rule and men as protectors of city, state and nation (Man is the head of a woman). But most importantly is how you have proclaimed the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This mystery now revealed to us finds it’s focal point in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus. His self-emptying and obedience to the Father, in order to redeem sinners is accomplished in love, because of the divine purposes of our Triune God who is the head of Christ (God is the head of Christ). So why is Christ’s covering, this visible symbol of the gospel and creed of creation hard to understand? From your teaching, I think everyone who has been made alive by the gospel understands these most fundamental creational, re-creational, redemptive teachings. And so, is the real issue and difficulty, not in professing these truths with our lips, but rather how we are to visibly acknowledge them in worship? Thank you Pastor.

Steve

Hey Doug! Enjoyed your article. Curious if you’re familiar with the work of Jason Gardwood on this subject? It’s a lengthy read, but the gist is that, according to his view, Paul is in fact arguing against the mandatory use of headcoverings, contra the insistence of a few factious men in Corinth. 1 Cor 7 begins with a lengthy quote of these men, to demonstrate he’s competent of their position and line of argumentation, and then he turns around and interacts with it. I’m not sold on this interpretation, but it’s an internally consistent and intellectually satisfying way of looking at it.

Martyn

RE: Headcoverings
I have been following you since Collision, so what? 20 years? This is one topic I have steered away from; a minor difference and not worth it. But since you brought it up . . .
I think that both you and I can admit—being honest arguers—that we each have made assumptions.
I think you first assumption is in #4 where you gather that Hannah’s example means headcoverings are not required in private. But in #2 you point out that the issue may not be so simple. And of course narratives do not carry the weight of didactic texts.
(Thank you for including #10—we can agree that whatever the teaching is, it should still be observed.)
My real difference start in #16. Although I agree with almost everything you have written, including #16 itself, but now it is asserted that it is the CENTRAL thing. I don’t think that is Paul’s argument. Paul says that man should not be covered because he is the glory of God. Woman should be covered because she is the glory of man (i.e. NOT the glory of God.) Then he says her hair is the glory of woman (i.e. NOT the glory of God.)
I think that the principle is that God’s glory should be visible and other glories should not. I grant this is not explicit, but I assert that it is the flow of Paul’s logic. I also assert that it explains why a woman should shave her head if she will not cover, because if you’re gonna hide HIS glory with YOUR glory, then ya outta shave that glory right off.
Praise God for giving her a covering that she likes so I don’t have to DO anything TO her (walk over & cover her) so I can that pray with my glory covered!
I think this argument applies to the unmarried girls as well, who are another type of glory to their fathers. I don’t think we need to drag in ancient headcoverings as a symbol of marriage since Paul doesn’t.
When my wife first accepted this practice (from a missionary friend of ours) I asked her why she wore it all the time, and she answered “because the Bible says to pray without ceasing.” A lot of the rockiness in our marriage stopped that very HOUR, and when I asked her why she said it made her always conscious of God (Corum Deo.)
Peace to you, my old friend.

Craig

In Galatians 5:14 Paul writes: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” I didn’t see anything in “21 Theses on Head Coverings for Women” that addressed what exactly head covering on women had to do with loving one’s neighbor. And since, as Paul says, that is the whole law, it would appear anything else is irrelevant.

Michael

I have very much appreciated the opportunity to write to you and hear your responses. I am sure you do not track repeat questioners, but I first reached out to you almost 3 years ago exactly with a question on head coverings. I appreciated your in-depth breakdown of the issue into 21 theses. It seems that your stance on this has changed since your commentary on 1 Corinthians. In our previous back and forth, I believed that you were fairly entrenched in the hair length camp and I was thinking an artificial covering was necessary. I have shifted to the hair length understanding of the text. I believe most of it was due to your well-reasoned interpretation of the text. However, I am fairly sure the pressure of leading my wife contrary to her and everyone else’s interpretation also played a part (even though hair length is still against her, my family’s, and my church’s interpretation). Regardless, I now believe that a woman’s hair should be longer than the common hair length of the men in her culture and specifically longer than her husband and vise versa for a man’s hair. This deals with the relative nature of what is considered to be long versus short.
However, it looks like you have changed your conviction on this issue from long hair to modest hair. Your theses do a good job of showing how you integrate cultural issues and modesty issues into a text that lacks them, but I am having difficulty getting there myself. It seems that when we attempt to unearth the cultural meanings of head coverings in the first century (not only in Corinth since v. 16 points out that it is standard across all the churches at that time) that they vary from historian to historian and are open to change with new discoveries. This seems like shaky ground when Paul spends 15 verses arguing for a practice without reference to culture. Additionally, he links the specific practice of head covering to the principle of headship honoring in such a way that we cannot fulfill the principle with something like our practice of wedding rings. I respect that you do not do this, but is not moving away for hair length to modest hair style undercutting the argument on what “nature teaches”?
Thank you for your openness to engage with strangers on the internet! I would love to come to Moscow, ID some day and worship with your congregation!
Sincerely,

Stephen

Could you point me to a more complete argument for using wine in communion, by yourself or others? Based on your points here, why wine but not unleavened bread like Christ would have used?
Thank you!

RK

What led you to believe using grape juice during communion was a sin? How similar must the wine be to that used in the Last Supper such as % alcohol? Do you think the same about the bread? Must be unleavened bread? In other words, what’s the principle behind your conclusions? Thanks!

CU

If a member in a Baptist church becomes convinced of the Christian duty to baptize one’s children (and if there is no opportunity to move to an area where a solid Presbyterian church exists)—do you think finding a local Presbyterian minister who is willing to undertake a ‘secret’ baptism of the children is a good option, probably with a select few other witnesses (Presbyterian elders etc.)? This would be to avoid the great consternation it would cause to the Baptist pastor.
Would you be willing to undertake such secret baptisms yourself?

John

Do you keep a comprehensive list of Bible commentaries that you find particularly helpful for sermon preparation, or for any general Bible study? If so, is that list available anywhere? I’m looking for faithful, Reformed commentaries.
Also, can you recommend any specifically for John’s Gospel? My church is currently going through this book.
God bless,

Will

What can be done practically to curb school shootings? Obviously, families need to be sitting under the authority of God’s word each week. But I mean from the school/government side of things. How can we keep our kids safer in school buildings?

Caleb

This is for the letter writer “Passer of Potatoes”. Many years ago at my dinner table, my brother-in-law instructed his disruptive 4-year-old son, “Matthew, act your age!” to which Matthew plaintively replied, “I am.” We all laughed heartily, much to Matthew’s bewilderment. Today, Matthew pastors a Bible-believing church. There is hope.

Melody

I just wanted to write to thank you. I just finished reading “My Life For Yours“, and it has been incredibly edifying to me. I know this is an older work of yours, but it’s new to me. My wife and I have both entered a phase of life where our aging parents are in significant decline, and are facing many end-of-life challenges. Your chapter “The Deathbed” was SO encouraging to me in being able to approach this time of their lives with something substantive to contribute to the whole situation. I have spent my whole life listening to Pastors and Preachers deliberately avoid treating this subject in any real depth, and in many cases actively avoiding it. While it was not a long chapter in the book, it was HUGE in jump-starting some BIBLICAL thinking on the topic for me. THANK YOU.

Michael

I believe that’s a scallop, not a clam, in your gif where “clams swim”.

David

Our family hosts a monthly Psalm sing. We love to sing fuging tunes at home but thought it would take years before we could get other folks able to sing them. But you recently advised someone on here that fuging tunes are the easiest way to learn harmony, and that was all the encouragement I needed. So we tried “Before Thee Let My Cry Come Near” at Psalm Sing last night. At first, skepticism and confusion abounded, but we took some time to teach each part, working up from the basses. When we finally put it all together, we nailed it. We sang like I’ve never heard us sing before, and the skepticism turned to laughter and wide-eyed amazement.
All that to say, thanks for the nudge. These beautiful tunes are not as far out of reach as we think!

Jake

As all good patriots know, we love our dear country, and we most certainly could not love our country’s very federalized government any less.
For instance:
Lincoln is not the golden boy modern history makes him out to be. Our country used to be the United “States”, not the United State, that it is today. Government overreach has gotten to levels our founders would’ve never believed . . . Woodrow Wilson is, let’s just say, not exactly our favorite guy.
All these fine things surrounding the increased federalization of the country(civil war, W.W., Admin State, government agencies running amuck unchecked), are things a young American boy takes for granted, just as the sky is blue. The first time his dad explains them to him, it makes sense, and that’s that.
Cutting to it, my mother-in-law(soon to become a citizen) made the mistake of asking me my opinion of our dear government, and now she’s down this rabbit hole. It all clicks, but she wants to read some of these things in a book somewhere.
Any help?
I know some of these lines cross, maybe there’s a catchall, maybe there’s two or three . . .
Doug, the book must be relatively readable

Logan

“A father who administers the sacraments to his family is out of line.”
I confess this was news to me. Can you direct me to something you’ve written or provide a short explanation here for why it’s wrong for a father to administer communion in the home?

Joe

Should I be tithing on my tax refund?

Nathan

I’m not sure this is a letter to the editor as much as it is a question. This week I read the section in Mother Kirk where you endorsed the Byzantine text of the New Testament and gave good arguments. It occurred to me that you have an excellent publishing house and a Godly ambition. Why not create a new Canon Press translation using a Byzantine text form? Maybe you could call it the Moscow Mood Version, the MMV.
I recently picked up the Kindle version of Robert Adam Boyd’s The New Testament: Byzantine Text Version. I haven’t read much of it so I’m not recommending it, but I wonder whether it could give you a head start.
What do you think?

Eubulus

30 Years of Teacher Training
Any change of recording or streaming of these? Our school year ends a lot later in Asia and I know I and maybe others would like to learn about teaching some of our classical subjects like Logic. Not many others have advice on that.

Luke

Thank you. Doug Wilson, you almost persuade me to become a Calvinist and not just any Calvinist but your brand of it; I see that I have been caught by the Moscow Mood and I very much appreciate it, I want to imitate it as it imitates Christ. But I believe I have a choice, I am dreadfully convinced against Calvinism, and apparently was predestined to be so. Thank you for all the work you and your team have done and are doing, and thank you for not hating me for not being a Calvinist. Thank you for your Chestertonian tone. I pastor a small church in a small community, and I have been incredibly blessed by you and your ministry. If I ever became a Calvinist I would immediately want to join the CREC. And I hope to one day visit your community in Moscow and express my thanks in person, and perhaps be delivered from this dreadful non-Calvinism but till then, thank you and keep on keeping on.
P.S. Would love advice for a first time pastor 34 years of age in a small town.

Daniel

Does the decision of the Council in Acts 15 regarding what Gentiles were responsible to do in regards to the Law the only thing we goyim are still responsible for?
“Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:19-21).
If so, why do we still admonish our children to obey the 10 commandments? If not, then where is the line and how do we draw it?
It’s my understanding (I’m no expert . . . ) that observant Jews would think it ridiculous that we think we need to obey the 10 commandments. Wouldn’t they rather instruct us goyim to obey the Noahic covenant rules/laws?
If I’m not off base here doesn’t it lend more weight to our “simply” obeying all that Jesus commanded the disciples to teach (Matthew 28)? Likewise, wouldn’t it mean that modern Jews are still required to follow some parts of the Law that Gentiles aren’t?
P.S. I’m no Dispensationalist and am in agreement with the late Alec Motyer when he instructs us to turn to the page in our modern Bibles with the title ‘New Testament’ and rip it out lest we get confused that the so-called OT and NT are somehow not a cohesive whole?

Tim

I’d appreciate some guidance with how to handle a situation.
A woman who is very active in our church—she leads the “welcome” ministry and is involved with the youth group, even teaching at times—apparently has a strong interest in reading smutty romance novels. Apparently quite explicit ones. My wife shared this with me after the woman mentioned that these books have even helped her and her husband’s love life. We’ve known her and her husband for several years, and she and my wife have become closer friends recently.
This leaves me with two questions:
Should I bring this up to our church elders? If so, how should I approach it? Part of me feels like this is a private matter, but I also wonder if it’s concerning given her role in the church.
Should I talk to my wife about their friendship? If so, what’s the best way to address it?
Thanks in advance for any wisdom you can share.

K

Was Lewis (Accidentally) Heretical?
I just finished reading Voyage of the Dawn Treader w/ my kids–wonderful story. My question is, in the ending of the book when the Lamb (Aslan) states that Lucy and Edmund can no longer come to Narnia, but will now learn of Him by a “different name” (in their world), does this mean that Lewis was implying that Jesus would have to be crucified in “multiple worlds” in order to save the race of each world?
I’ve always believed that aliens can’t exist, because if they did Jesus would have to die for THAT race as well (because the Bible seems to be clear that His crucifixion on Calvary was for the human race, exclusively), and multiple deaths of the Eternal Son would not be an option. Well, it seems that that’s kinda was Lewis is putting forth in this story! I.e. The Incarnate Son (as Aslan) had to be crucified on the Stone Table to redeem Narnia, and He (as Jesus) had to be crucified on the Cross to redeem the earth. So multiple crucifixions now—is this idea heretical or genius?
I know this is all silly, because we’re talking about a fictional world . . . but when he introduced the idea of the Lamb at the end of Dawn Treader that “goes by another name” in their world, I couldn’t help but ask your thoughts!

Ben

I believe that the stories we (as Christians) write should end with good triumphing over evil, but to what extent is this true? How far are the repercussions of evil allowed to go? For example, in “The Sorrows of Young Werther” by Goethe, the main character attempts to seduce a married woman but after failing commits suicide (this is obviously an oversimplification of the book). In one sense, good wins. A faithful marriage stays intact and one might say that the evil one gets punished, but on the other hand, this is not a happy ending, and evil wins. The main character becomes corrupted and it ends with the tragic (though arguably somewhat justified) death of the “protagonist.” No one finishes this book feeling good. Neither the author or reader views it as a happy story of good winning. Is this the type of book a Christian could write in good conscience?
In christian love,

Oscar

F.F. Bruce said that it was better to say that the bible is “true,” rather than “infallible.” I think he’s right because the term “infallible” doesn’t sound right when applied to a book. To be infallible is to be “incapable of making an error or mistake.” But the Bible is already written—done and dusted—finished. To claim that a person is infallible would be to say that in any future answer or piece of advice or calculation they would be incapable of making a mistake because they are so knowledgeable about their subject (hence nobody is infallible, not even the pope).
However, to say that the Bible is “true” means it is not inaccurate, false in anything that it has to say about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all that pertains to salvation history and divine revelation concerning how we should live—and of course the Eschaton—and all that it has to say about origins as well as destiny. Hence, for e.g.the Bible is true when it says that Christ rose from the dead bodily, that he will come again, that unless we repent we are lost, etc, etc. It is also true when it makes pronouncements on historical nations, kings, rulers, and when it speaks of life after death in either heaven or hell (or outer darkness).
The advantage I see here is that it does way with silly arguments that people throw at Christians about misspellings in the Greek, or bad grammar in Mark or Revelation, or whether a 1,800 died in a battle or 2,000 and so on. Likewise Genesis 1 can be declared true, because, along with Chapters 2 & 3 it accurately conveys the origins, the cause of the universe, and why humans damaged creation by turning their backs on God who created them freely. It is also true to that extent in adopting an “anthropocentric” view of the creation (rather than a cosmic/astronomical, scientific view of the universe) it rightly stresses where the action is as far as God and humanity is concerned.
The danger for Evangelicals is of supposing that there is only one form or type of truth which (since the late 19th and early 20th century up until today) is largely empiricist in the same type of sense that a philosopher or scientist might use this word.
Any thoughts?

Brendan of Ireland

Have you ever read “The Master and His Emissary” by Iain McGilchrist? I skimmed your book list but didn’t see it. It is a fascinating, paradigm-shifting book on brain hemisphere function (the manner in which each hemisphere attends to the world). Discovering the creative genius of God in how it functions is worth the read alone, but McGilchrist goes further and describes how left hemisphere dominance, as opposed to right hemisphere dominance like he says we are meant to be, has created a “cultural schizophrenia.” I believe he had some training as a clergyman of sorts at one time, though went into the neurology/psychology direction. His book does assume Darwinian models, but most of it is legit verifiable science. The main application I have found, of which there are many, is in education (i.e.: traditional education caters to left brain manner of thinking, classical Christian is more right brain—the way we were created to be).
Anyway, I think about this book more than I think about the Romans Empire, which, if I am a typical male, is multiple times a day. It has myriad implications and applications to understanding the very strange, schizophrenic culture we live in. I recommend it to all your readers as it will augment wonder and worship of God as well as provide lots of fodder for how to see the modern world since the enlightenment.
Here is a link to a short interview with Mr McGilchrist with Eric Metaxas to whet the appetite, if you would like.

Tim

The introduction by Alan Jacobs to the book:
A.W. Auden – For The Time Being – A Christmas Oratorio, is worth the price of the book! One book spawns a plethora of more!
It should be essential reading for the students of your college, I would think. You know Doug we are almost the same age and I thank you for changing my life, Death Through Living ! But now I must plead with God to give me more years than I deserve just to finish reading the many books that have enriched me through knowing you and your ministry, unless we would continue this endeavor topside!

David

I want to thank you for your article. Love Me, Love My Dog.
Back in December I wrote a rather lengthy and probably convoluted letter via your blog with concern about how the response to Joel Webbon and the Ogden guys was taking place.
I just wanted to thank you for remaining steadfast in all this. As the months have ticked by it has shown a direction that seems to be devolving more and more.
Although the voices on X are often loud, though not very clear does this seem to be more of a fringe movement or is it becoming more main stream?
Thank you,
Cordially in Christ,

Nathan

I just finished reading “The Beijing Betrayal” by Joel Rosenberg and near the end there was a pastor performing a marriage ceremony and the pastor said this: “There’s a pastor and theologian that I’ve appreciated who has family dinners every Saturday night with his kids and grandkids. And every Saturday night he asks his grandkids, “What’s the point of the whole Bible?” His grandkids then respond in unison with these six words: “Kill the dragon, get the girl .””
I think it’s pretty cool that even in what can seem to be ordinary and simple things like your Sabbath dinners you have made an extraordinary impact on people. Thank you brother.
Providential Blessings,

Michael

I’ve been listening to Jeremiah Burroughs on contentment. He noted that the Old covenant’s promises that pertained to issues of prosperity and health, although they can be plead by New Covenant Christians, are often only realized in a Spiritual manner, whereas under the Law, they held forth a more confident hope in their earthly realization. Do you believe this is a faithful application of covenant theology? Or is it missing something? He did hold forth some hope for earthly blessings, but just not as abundantly now. I remember Calvin saying something similar in his commentary on Psalms 128, as part of the change of administrations.
I wonder how much of this has to do with 1) the nature of covenant blessings relating to health and prosperity, and 2) the role of having an explicitly Christian society and government.
It would seem that an exiled Jew would not have the same expectation of earthly realization of such covenant promises, although it should be recognized that in the case of Daniel, one sees similar sorts of blessing placed upon him. Likewise, Christians under the thumb of North Korean dictators, or on the crossroads of Boko Haram, may not see the earthly realization of these promises. However, the seed of those promises are held by every true believer. So, even in those places it would seem that those promises are coming to partial realization.
How much of the nature of the covenant promises relating to health and prosperity have to do with the transformation of the man (inner and outer) into the image of Christ, such that he lives in greater harmony with the created order? And how much of it has to do with blessings disconnected from nature?
How much of one’s expectation of realizing such blessings has to do with being within a corporate body politic that is covenanted civically to the Lordship of Christ? And are such covenants possible in the New Covenant? Is such a covenant part of the covenant of Grace, or adjacent to? Would that impact our understanding of the nature of the Mosaic Covenant? Or are such covenants literally a fact of existence that every civic body is covenanted with some god or another, if not the living God?
I’d love to hear your thoughts and to see this fleshed out more. This dimension of covenant theology seems unaddressed by many.

Joshua