Those Blasphemy Laws
Your article on blasphemy laws was great. I borrow from you liberally when trying to persuade my friends about the imperative of us becoming a Christian nation. Make the government demonstrate the behavior first! Then worry about the little guy.
I get excited every time I hear a Christian Nationalist advocate for slashing the size and scope of government. It makes me believe there is a lot to like about this project. The only imponderable remaining, for me, is whether they’ll also be willing to slash Customs and Border Patrol. Some of their writings leaves me wondering.
But, I am an optimist. If we can get the government to obey blasphemy laws, perhaps we can also get them to obey Leviticus 19:33-34.
Imagine what the rabble coming out of the desert, from the direction of the Red Sea, must have looked like to Amalek. Chaotic, maybe.
If we get American congresscritters to behave like Christians, as we both work and pray for, do you imagine the stream of immigrants will politely decrease? Will making our nation into the head again make us less attractive to people from socialist hellholes?
Regards,
Judd
Judd, thanks. There is much in what you say.
Yup. Saw It.
Wondering if you’ve seen this:
“Corporate Church” in America may end up being a total write off… :(
Michael
Michael, the only thing to discuss in your surmise is the timing of the phrase “may end up being.” Let’s consider the possibility that it is already in the rear-view mirror.
Christ or Chaos
Because of your constant drumbeat “Christ or Chaos” I had several hundred bumper stickers made and distribute them to whomever will take one. It surprises me how many Christians refuse them.
On another note, you mention Herbert Schlossburg’s book “Idols for Destruction” many times in your blog. I read it when it was first published and agree with you. It is one of the seminal works in modern history and needs to be read far and wide.
Blessings to you, my brother.
Howard
Howard, thanks and amen.
But Is It True?
In “When Everything Starts to Converge on the Point” I believe you drive home a point which I do not believe you intend when you say, “And what this meant is that some of our distinctives that used to appear somewhat offbeat were now . . . powerfully attractive”. Notice here how it has nothing to do with folks being convinced of the truth of such distinctives, but rather they are now “powerfully attractive”? This reminds me of an elder of a CREC Church I attended some years ago who explained to me that his wife had several miscarriages. He went on to explain that he was in the CREC because of its teaching concerning infants. Notice again how this has more to do with what is more appealing as opposed to what the actual truth may be. Another example of this would be, one of the distinctives of the denomination I was raised in was conditional immortality. This would be like one saying, “the reason I am an Advent Christian is, I would rather not believe there are those who will experience eternal punishment”. I happen to agree with you on this point in that I have become convinced that a lot of folks are coming to such views not out of being convinced they are in fact true, nor out of a true concern for those who are lost, but rather out of selfish concern for their own welfare. In other words, these folks look out into what you call “clown world” and they are afraid we as Christians are losing our privileged status, and they are willing to believe, and do anything at all in order to protect such privileged status, as the ends justifies the means.
Postmillennialism is attractive because as you say, “we believe OURSELVES to be in a battle that WE are going to win.” The truth of the matter is, the victory does not depend on us, nor our efforts but rather the victory has been won for us by Christ in spite of our efforts. Theonomy is attractive to us because we as humans are hard wired to law. In other words, we understand the system of law that one gets what they deserve. What is counter to us as humans is Gospel. This is why the Gospel has to be continually preached to even those of us who believe, because we will naturally revert back to law. The serrated edge (and this is one I am very guilty of) is more appealing because it is far easier to insult and cut than it is to actually engage those who may be opposed. So while I will agree these distinctives to be far more appealing, this does not cause these distinctives to be true.
You continue over, and over to point to Baptists who are opposed to theonomy because they are aware of the history of Christian states. While it may in fact be true there are Baptists who are opposed because of such history, this is certainly not the only objection. Rather, there are those of us who are opposed because we as the Church, nor as Christians are ever commanded to take over the civil realm in order to infuse, and or enforce the Mosaic law into our civil law as a nation. In fact, what Paul tells the Romans is, “we are dead to the law” and we are “dead to the law” in order that we might be married to another who is Christ. The law does not have the power to save us as individuals, nor does it have the power to save the nation. It is only the Gospel which has the power to do both, and when we lose faith in the power of the Gospel, as stated above, we will naturally revert back to law.
Allow me to say that I am convinced the fiasco occurring right now in the Republican party concerning the Speaker of the House can be directly tied to Christian nationalism, and my prediction is things are going to get far worse. Christian nationalism is a movement which is not going to end well for anyone, and the sad thing is there seem to be many Christians who look forward to it with pride. I will end by saying this again, and I will continue to say it. The Church has involved itself in the culture wars for some 5 decades now, all the while the culture becomes ever more immoral as our churches continue to empty out, and yet the Church continues to double down on the culture wars. What in the world does it take for folks to come to the conclusion that the war for the culture is not the answer? It’s insanity!
Jack
Jack, thanks for sharing your thoughts. But I really do believe you have missed the point, and by a considerable margin. The truth is the truth whether anybody wants to hear it or not. However, when the prodigal son found himself envying the pigs their food, this opened his mind to a consideration of the truth.
Equity and Equality
We subscribe to canon+ mostly because of you and we pray for you as you stand up boldly and pray that you listen to and obey God’s voice constantly. We know that all our leaders need that.
Thanks for all you have done in obedience to Him.
Because I’m interested in understanding Proverbs 1 better, I just read a definition on naceweb.org for equity. It states, “WHAT IS EQUITY?
“The term ‘equity’ refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures.”
With a little help and training from people like you and Vodie B, that last phrase was a dead giveaway of their worldview. The previous part was imaginable at first sight, until I gave it 3 seconds—then it didn’t fit my previous readings of Proverbs well at all.
Would you mind helping me understand the true meaning of equity from a biblical perspective?
Steve
Steve, equality means equality in opportunity. The way they are defining equity, it means equality in outcome. But that requires the establishment of certain officials who will ensure that equality of outcome. And the first and most obvious thing about such officials is that they are . . . not equal.
Lewis Lectures
I want to thank you for all your work on Lewis, especially with the Ransom Trilogy. Per your recorded lectures on them, I have reread them many times now, and continue to draw out more. Have you written anything on Lewis’ Till We Have Faces? I recently read it and found it strange, but powerful. I know you talk a lot about the need for regular confession of sin as the foundation for Christian joy, and I think that book has much to say about that. I had my thoughts on it here.
I think your commentary would be excellent- you may have already written on it but I have not seen it if you have.
CI
CI, thanks. Yes, I do have some thoughts on it, somewhere in the NSA archives. Unfortunately, I do not know where it is. But last time this came up, the nice crowdsource people out there knew. Links, anybody?
Sabbath Shops
What are your thoughts on a Christian business owner operating a shop/restaurant on Sundays? Is it lawful? Is there any way it could be good or wise? What if the owner shares equal ownership with another believer who does not hold the same sabbath convictions for the store, but is committed to ensuring “sabbath rest” for the employees (just not necessarily on Sundays, assuming there are non believing employees who want to work on Sundays)? How would you counsel the one wanting to close the shop? Thanks.
Lance
Lance, I would encourage everyone to head in as much of a sabbath direction as possible. An individual owner of a hardware store should close on the Lord’s Day. An owner of a restaurant can lawfully remain open (“works of necessity”), but should structure the work schedule so that employees can rest and worship God. But everything else being equal, Christians should lead the way in “business as usual” ceasing to be the case on Sunday.
Past Reminders
I’m a married Christian woman with a handful of children. Before I became a Christian many years ago, I struggled deeply with self harm and the scars of that cover my arms in a very visible way. It’s not something I struggle with anymore in any capacity. I feel very self conscious about it, especially when around other Christians and avoid addressing it at all costs. A couple times however, children, in their very child-like way, have asked about the scars point blank. What should I tell them? I don’t want to scare them or introduce a concept to them that they might not even know but I also don’t want to lie to them. Also, is it bad that as a Christian I feel embarrassed about such a thing even though Christ already paid the price? I know I am forgiven but it’s very hard living with the reminders every day and for all the world to see. Is my embarrassment indicative of a lack of faith or spiritual issues for which I should repent? Or is that a rational response to having such an outward physical reminder of my pagan lifestyle?
Thank you. I really enjoy your blog and you are a very smart man.
M
M, I think that it is not good to feel embarrassed about it, but if you are going into a new situation, it is normal to feel awkward . . . because you don’t have the opportunity to explain, and you know how noticeable it is. But that awkwardness would be there if it had nothing to do with your prior behavior, like an unsightly birthmark. In those situations, if you don’t want to feel awkward, wear long sleeves. But if you are around people you know, don’t feel ashamed—Christ has taken all your shame away. And if a child asks about them, say something like, “God has allowed me to keep these scars as a reminder of how much the devil hates us.”
Where It All Converges
RE: Converge on the Point
Goodness! The lengths that people will go to avoid enforcing rules and acknowledging where they come from.
If a public moral consensus disintegrates . . . is nothing to be done? By nature of disintegration there would be no ‘public’. . . but I’m sure a part (let’s call it a remnant) would remain that would represent the standard.
The fact that a biblical standard still applies to monarchies and judges, conventions and constitutional republics ought to bring the world comfort . . . except that it’s true, and it’s from Jesus. Anything but that.
Since Mr. Riley went with the sports comparison . . . I’d argue that the best sports teams, probably like the best countries . . . practice and believe in their fundamentals, celebrate victories and accomplishments and learn from mistakes and failures. All because they know what standard those outcomes are based on.
Be Blessed Pastor Wilson!
JM
JM, thanks.
Doug, I enjoyed this quote from your recent “When Everything Starts to Converge” post: “We really do live in a time of chaos, and what we are teaching offers answers, and alternatives, and a strategy, and a bracing dose of confidence. And psalms. Don’t leave out the psalms.”
As a reasonably-staunch premill guy, I have to say, it is EXACTLY these things that have attracted me to what Christ Church is doing in Moscow and around the world. The idea that WE might win IN Christ (as opposed to Christ winning with me offstage) is very bracing. The serrated edge is obviously needed in these times. Thank you for not being adversarial to us premill guys.
Tim
Tim, thanks much. And great to have you with us.
Israeli War Crimes
I am writing in response to:
A Moral Compass and the Ball Peen Hammer
Has Israel ever tried their own for war crimes? Is it assumed that, as a Western nation, they would because the US would, and Canada would, and the UK would, so Israel probably would too? If you read “Whose Land? Whose Promise?” By Gary M. Burge, or watch the documentary “With God On Our Side” by Porter Speakman Jr., it will become apparent that Israel has committed war crimes, and has not prosecuted their own for such. There is more material out there if you look, but Israel is investing significant effort into concealing their misdeeds from the eyes of the public. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, both sides have been wronged, and both sides have wronged, and it is not a simple matter of one being monstrous and the other being innocent.
Respectfully,
Brian
Brian, it also needs to be pointed out accusations of war crimes are not the same thing as war crimes. The accusations are easy to come by.
RE: Israel and Hamas (dated 8th January 2009)
Thank you for your thoughts on this and many other topics. Given the recent events I have been reflecting on the issue of Zionism and I was hoping you could help clarify my thoughts on the topic.
You have previously stated:
“I acknowledge that this particular mess in the Middle East would not be occurring if not for the misbegotten policies of the Zionism of yesteryear. Israel had no peculiar divine right to that territory, but they went there anyway, and bad things started to happen because Zionism as a doctrine is false.”
Now I agree with you up to a point. I do not believe that Jews have any divine right to the land, rather that God has a divine right to the land (and every other land) and he gave the land to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-2, Genesis 15:7). As such it was his whilst he was still without an heir. But in no sense did that mean Abraham had the right to evict the current dwellers of the land and he sojourned among them as a foreigner, having to live and abide amongst them peacefully and lawfully.
Indeed we do not see the promise come to any sort of fruition until the Prophet Joshua. However, due to their rebellion God exiled them using the Assyrians and Babylonians and then again a second time using the Romans.
So it seems to me that the promise by God is in fact real and abiding regardless of the state of affairs at any point in history such that every Jew since Abraham could say “this is the land God gave to us via our forefather Abraham” but this has never equated to “therefore we may do as we please and evict the current settlers”, nor can it be claimed/demanded (Acts 1:6-7).
If Zionism is simply the desire for the Jews to be a nation in their own homeland as is expressed in their national anthem Hatikvah or by the prophet Daniel (Daniel 6:10, 9:4 – 19) and other prophets, I don’t see how this is a false doctrine (though incomplete as true Zionism should lead one to Christ)?
However, if Zionism is that Jews having had the promise of God (or for secular Jews simply that we used to live here once so let’s go back and live there again) have the right to take the land by any means then I agree it is false.
(I also think there is something to be said about this abiding Jewish desire for Zion and the gospel but I think that is a topic for another day).
Additionally given the sovereignty of God isn’t the establishment of Israel in 1948 was an act of God for His own purposes? I think this is true of the USA in 1776 and all other significant national events, though with the Jews there is a difference given their unique covenant with God. Simultaneously, I do not think that I should presume to know the intentions or purposes of God either (whether looking back or forward in history).
Would I be right in thinking the above? I feel as though I am muddled on the topic (hence my inability to express these thoughts succinctly).
Yours in Christ
Chim
Chim, I agree with a lot of what you say, and would put it this way. Religious Jews can appeal to Scripture and to Abraham, but throughout Scripture, a return to the Lord must precede a return to the land, which has not yet happened. The secular Jew has no basis for laying unique claim to the territory other than what any other nation could claim. In other words, I believe that they have the Golan Heights and the West Bank by right of conquest—they conquered it in a war they didn’t start. But this is a secular claim, not a religious one.
This is a late response to A Moral Compass and the Ball Peen Hammer. I think a perfectly fine reading of the conflict isn’t who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, but rather the dishonest bad guys are fighting the loud and proud bad guys. Israel is dishonest about their sins and Hamas is loud and proud about theirs. Also, I don’t think the border issue is unrelated. It seems like we are in a position where our own terrorists are walking into the house and Dad wants to leave the family and go down the street and help the bad guys fight some worse bad guys.
Joshua
Joshua, thanks for sharing!
Blame and Responsibility
It is interesting to consider the interplay between blame, responsibility, and authority. This informs so much of our cultural moment. The Marxist philosophy that assigns virtue to the oppressed and vice to those with power and authority means everyone is clamoring to establish themselves as victims. Moreover, if “authority flows to those who take responsibility,” then it seems prudent for those who desire to remain “virtuously powerless” to skirt responsibility. I’m curious, though, if you have thoughts on “victim blaming.” Any attempt to call victims (real or otherwise) to personal responsibility for their actions, healing, growth, etc . . . is seen as “victim blaming.” Yet, if it follows that “urging [someone] to take responsibility is an exercise in establishing their authority,” how can I help others see this?
It seems that personal responsibility is about reclaiming one’s power and authority. Is the rejection of this evidence of cultural Marxism or something else?
How would you approach this topic? Specifically, how would you help victims of abuse reestablish authority by taking responsibility?
Thank you
DN
DN, you are identifying the most challenging aspect of all this. We have people play-acting the victim, we have genuine victims who were partly complicit, and we have genuine victims. Christians who are involved with such folks have to be willing to confront the hypocrisy of the first group, to help victims in the second group see that the way forward is to confess their complicity to whatever extent needed, and for the third group to show nothing but compassion.
Blessing the Grandkids
I would love your advice on how to appeal to Christian grandparents to stay nearby to invest in the lives of grandchildren rather than move overseas as missionaries during their retirement. For context, I grew up as a missionary kid overseas with my two siblings. My parents moved back to the United States to care for their aging grandparents, but as soon as my last grandmother dies (which will be soon), their plan is to move back overseas. The problem is that they would be leaving their three kids and a growing number of young grandchildren in the USA. They would be leaving a situation most Christian grandparents would love: all of their kids and grandkids live within 40 minutes of each other, we get along well, and we enjoy each other’s company. We would love my parents to be more involved in the grandkids’ lives, but they believe that their true calling is for overseas missions. I grew up inadvertently learning from my parents that the real kingdom work is in full-time missions to unreached groups and marriage and children is at best a happy “add-on” (especially if you can train your kids to be overseas missionaries) or at worst, a hindrance to the real kingdom work. My mom shares stories of many women she knows who left overseas missions to get married and then regretted their marriages or women who put off marriage till their sixties so they could be in full time ministry. The moral of the stories is that marriage and children should be secondary to the calling of full-time ministry. There are several theological differences that explain why we differ with my parents on our view of family: they’re dispensational and Baptist and we’ve caught the postmill vision and have become covenantal and paedobaptist. I grew up with no affection for my grandparents because I hardly knew them, but I always felt a void in that area and I’m sad that my children might experience the same void. My husband would like to talk to my parents about the issue and share our vision and preferences. I’d like to stay removed from the conversation because I fear I’d become too emotional and angry, especially since I feel my children are being wronged by their grandparents. I’d appreciate any advice you have to share about the situation. Thank you for reading my long letter.
Sarah
Sarah, I think you are wise to stay out if you think you would become emotional. But I also think it would be unwise to let them head back overseas without knowing how you feel about it. I would encourage your husband to tell them that you all won’t nag about it, and so this will be the one conversation, but you did want to have a clear understanding of your preferences. One thing you could do is pray that you come across a ministry here where they could donate their time.
Necessary Conflict?
Got in some trouble after revealing my thoughts on women voting and feminism. These are good godly people at my PCA church that I disagreed with, and I hate having conflict. I have family members in this boat as well. Is this just an unavoidable thing to deal with when holding to such controversial opinions? When do I know if I’ve moved into error with this sort of thing?
As a note in this vein, whenever I do bring about a controversial view (political, theological) and someone I respect or love has issue with it I just get so down in the dumps and start to question myself. Rarely do I end up thinking the opinion is wrong but I feel bad. Should I just get over myself? It makes me hate having those conversations even if I feel like I’m doing the right thing. Hope you can help! Love your work.
John
John, I wouldn’t back away from your views, but I would make a point of only sharing them when there is an actual situation, or an actual decision to be made. Don’t bring up your views as a way of making conversation, in other words. If your church starts having women do the Scripture reading, you should speak up because there is an issue to talk about, and you didn’t create the situation. Given the times we are in, there will be occasions where you have to speak up. But don’t be Winston Churchill’s definition of a fanatic—someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
Another Recommendation on Imprecatory Psalms
You recently had some interaction with letter writers regarding imprecatory Psalms, and recommended “The War Psalms of the Prince of Peace” by Adams. I wanted to make another recommendation for you: “Crying for Justice: What the Psalms teach us about mercy and vengeance in an age of terrorism” by John N. Day. While not a long book, I have found it to be an enlightening critique regarding how Christians have thought about these writings over the years, and also a call to give them their proper due in our interactions with Scripture in the “modern era”. It is extensively end-noted with commentary and references for further study. Might be worth a look for those interested in taking a closer look at these Scriptures that sound so foreign to us now…
Michael
Michael, thanks very much. I haven’t read it, but I think I have it somewhere.
A Unique Situation
This is not about a post, it’s a personal/legal matter. I’ve been contracted by a school in a country hostile to Christianity. They want to incorporate classical education into their model and asked me to teach Omnibus III. However, they also have said almost half the books/documents gone over in Omnibus II are too “sensitive” and after reading the intros to the other ones, they said even those have “sensitive material.” I’ve been able to modify some of the intros in Omnibus III (getting rid of anything that would make the administration worried the government might swoop in) so we are still doing the class the classical way. I just wanted to let you know. Obviously, I make it clear it’s been modified from such and such original authors. The school is not for international students but for native-born ones, but they still want to bring classical in so I want to help them.
Luke
Luke, thanks for your labor, and God bless it. Thanks for letting us know. The thing to be aware of is that such self-censoring on the part of the school can easily get out of hand.
A Headship Question
So, this about covenant responsibility. How do we determine whose behavior we are responsible for? Am I responsible for . . .
-my husband’s bad behavior?
-the bad behavior of my siblings when we were growing up in the home (revealed years later)?
-the bad behavior of my countrymen three generations ago?
-the bad behavior of any Christian over the last 2000 years? All these are things that various folks in the world have attempted to hold me not just responsible but guilty for. I do not see how this can be just, since all these behaviors are beyond my control.
Jennifer
Jennifer, you are correct. Where the Bible assigns responsibility, it also assigns authority. A wife is not responsible for her husband’s sin, although he is responsible for hers. And the same principle extends to your other examples.
There Is Almost Always an Eschatology Question
I’m so happy to have come across your teachings and I pray that God will bless you, your family, and your ministry. Thanks to your work, I feel that I found another “piece of the puzzle” when it comes to my faith and theology. I’m almost ready to “come-out” as post-millennialist but there are a couple of things that still bother me.
For example, I finished reading your book “When the Man Comes Around” (thank you for the book and for introducing me to the Johnny Cash song) and when you address Revelation 20:3 you say that “. . . when he was bound, this meant that he would not be able to prevent the successful evangelization of the Empire,” and later, “We are promised that when Satan is bound in this way, he will not be able to manipulate the nations the way he was able to before” (pages 230 and 231).
In what ways would you say the devil’s influence over the nations changed after 70 A.D.? It seems that you think that he has no influence over the nations anymore. If that is the case, to what do you attribute all the horrible things that are happening in the World at a “nations” level? Is there anything in the Bible that will help support your view?
I have other questions that I might ask at another time.
Gustavo
Gustavo, in the old covenant, the great empires had demonic authority behind them. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome—all had dark principalities backing them up. I believe that men are still fallen, and can do wicked things, but I don’t believe that they have the same mojo behind them that they used to.
Instruments in Worship
In your book “Church Music” from the Onslaught series, you made the claim that musical instruments are required in the public worship of the church. If I remember correctly, you wrote that the phrase “making melody in your heart” in Ephesians 5:19 should be translated “making melody with your heart,” and that the word “psallontes” which is translated “making melody” should not be taken figuratively, but rather, as referring to the plucking of an instrument. I’ve never heard anyone else interpret the passage that way; could you explain a bit more why you hold to this interpretation? The parallel passage in Colossians 3:16 reads, “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord,” without mention of “making melody;” would that have any bearing on the interpretation?
How do you respond to those who hold that we may not use any instruments in the church for public worship—advocates of “a cappella only” worship, especially in Presbyterian circles? For example, do you believe that the specific commands in the Old Testament to play upon the harp, and lute, and lyre, and so forth, constituted part of the ceremonial law, and thus are abolished in Christ? Do you believe that general equity demands that we use instruments of our own cultural context?
Finally, I’m not imminently familiar with historical sources, but I do know that the use of instruments was condemned by Martyr, Aquinas, Calvin, Knox, and, I believe, Spurgeon. One of the most direct works on the subject is “Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church” by John Girardeau. Are you familiar with any of their comments on this subject, and how do you respond to them?
I am eager for your thoughts!
For the King,
Chris
Chris, all of these discussions revolve around the regulative principle of worship. Now all Protestants must be regulativists of some stripe, but there is a strict approach and a reasonable (I think) approach. The strict guys say that whatever is not expressly required by Scripture for our worship services is forbidden. My problem with this is that it proves too much, and excludes even more than the strict regulativists themselves would exclude. For example, we have no express warrant for women partaking of the Lord’s Supper, for Sunday observance, or for singing out loud at all. We are told to sing in our hearts. Consequently, I prefer the regulative principle as articulated by Hughes Oliphant Old when he said, “worship must be according to Scripture.”
I’m not sure what Judd is complaining about. His dream is coming true all over the West, from our basically open Southern border to boatloads of military-age Africans and Middle Easterners coming into Europe. He has it completely backwards, though. A godly nation needs to get their laws on crime, blasphemy, sodomy, etc. correct and enforced before opening doors to immigrants (whatever that policy looks like–when OT Israel was being overrun like we are, it was considered an invasion). The welfare state needs to be taken down first as well. Otherwise, your cities will look like this (I could show… Read more »
There’s some reason, in context, to believe that some of the “love the alien” passages refer to Israelite “tramps” as we could call them, rather than foreigners. And Ancient Israel was a hard-core theocracy, which even the most radical ethnonationalists and Christian nationalists would not want to live in, foreigners could be banished for drinking animal blood or killed for worshipping idols. Also, today, open borders are only expected of Europeans, and many of them are abandoning that concept, much later than any non-European country would. South Korea, the country with the lowest fertility rate in the world, is not… Read more »
He lost me at “they are afraid of losing their privileges as Christians.”
Not only is the word “privilege” now a red flag, but looking back on my own experience in the public school system, my privileges as a Christian include being blamed for the Crusades, the Inquisition, anything bad that ever happened as a result of colonialism, the Salem witch trials, and even the burning of the great library at Alexandria, which was done by Muslims if I’m not mistaken. Oh, and also for industrialization and for whenever men behave badly, for some reason.
Jennifer, I do not see where Judd said anything concerning Christians losing there privileged status. However, I did in fact say, “these folks look out into what you call “clown world” and they are afraid we as Christians are losing our privileged status, and they are willing to believe, and do anything at all in order to protect such privileged status, as the ends justifies the means”. I believe your response is making my point. Because you see, when I was coming up in the public schools, Christianity was the preferred religion, as everyday was started with Bible reading and… Read more »
Are you 100 years old?
Not quite Jennifer. I started in the public schools in the late 1960’s and at least through the 3rd grade, the teacher would read a Bible verse for the day, we would then pledge allegiance to the flag, while closing in the Lords prayer. This could occur back then, because most folks were Christians, and those who were not, did not object because the few folks who were not Christian had respect for the Church and Christians. Now that this is no longer the case, instead of continuing to love our neighbor who is an unbeliever, we instead go to… Read more »
I’m beginning to think Judd and Jack (“Christian nationalism is the reason there is no Speaker of the House right now!” — I about spit out my Jameson’s when I read that, it was so hilarious), each with his respective monomania, are AI trolls — heavy on the A, not so much the I.
My friend, have you heard about what is called “Project 2025”? If not, you should be aware. When you become aware, you will certainly come to see that Christian nationalism is directly behind the turmoil in the Republican party. You have Republicans who have come out in support of Christian nationalism, while you have other Republicans who rightly understand Christian nationalism to be a threat to democracy. Ergo, the turmoil. In other words, these Republicans who support Christian nationalism are no longer in the mode of compromise, and they are willing to burn the house down as opposed to compromise.… Read more »
You say, “Christian nationalism is a threat to democracy.”
I’ll bite. Where does Jesus command us to support democracy? I can tell you exactly where he wants the nations to be Christians.
If you prefer democracy to Christianity, you are on the wrong blog, and quite possibly the wrong religion.
Yes, the Christian nationalism that aims to infuse, and or enforce the Mosaic law into our civil law, which would include Doug Wilson is indeed a threat to democracy. I never came close to suggesting that Jesus supports democracy because I do not believe Jesus ever gave his support to any form of government. Are you suggesting that you are ready to ditch democracy? If so, what would you like in place of democracy? If Jesus wants the nations to be Christian, what exactly is keeping Jesus from getting what He wants? Is Jesus sitting at the right hand of… Read more »
Your paragraphs of word salad say way too much to respond to. How about say one thing at a time if you actually want a response, which it doesn’t look like at this point. All your questions have been answered, many on this very blog. If you continue asking, you are simply trolling and ignorant.
Jesus does want all people to follow the moral law as outlined in the OT and confirmed in the NT, and he ordained government as HIS minister of justice upon evildoers.
It’s literally their job to enforce God’s Law. This isn’t hard.
Okay Johnathan, I will attempt to make this short and sweet, and please give me some sort of response, in that I have stated this fact over, and over and have not gotten any sort of response. It is a fact, which can be demonstrated beyond doubt, that the Church has been involved in the culture wars for some 5 decades now, all the while the culture becomes ever more immoral, as our Churches continue to empty out. Moreover, the majority of the few Christians we have left are opposed to theonomy, and or Christian nationalism. With these being the… Read more »
Do I understand you to suggest democracy is incompatible with Christianity, or do I misunderstand you here?
Perhaps it is stated somewhere and I’ve missed it, but what form of government would best describe what Christian Nationalism foresees and desires?
I am not saying it is entirely incompatible. I’m saying it’s less important. I would rather have a monarchy that honored Jesus in its actions and laws than a democracy that didn’t.
Most CNs advocate for a Republic much like the founding, only more explicitly Christian. America is not, and has never been, a mere democracy.
Oh, no! Not Project 2025! Heaven forbid conservatives finally start organizing and getting stuff done! Gramsci’s long march has them beat by eighty years, but better late than never. Just for kicks and giggles, I took a look at what the conspiracy theorists at Wiki had to say about Project 2025: Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice… The fiends! How whacked in the head does this Project 2025 outfit have to be to believe the Executive Branch should be under… Read more »
My friend, “Project 2025” is not simply “conservatives finally start organizing and getting stuff done”! This is what you call a Christian take over. I mean, this should not be shocking to anyone. Just take a look at Doug Wilson, and Stephen Wolfe, who both call for a Christian Prince. This should demonstrate to everyone that these folks are done with the form of government we now have, and are ready for a take over. These folks are self proclaimed Christian nationalist, and the fact of the matter is, these folks have been involved in the culture war for decades… Read more »
ChatGPT, the Founding Fathers were Christian nationalists who fought an actual war (not just a cultural one) to give us the form of government we have. This nation was largely a Christian nation up until about the mid-20th century and, last I checked, the form of government hasn’t changed since 1788. So, it would appear that what you derisively call “Christian nationalism” and our form of government worked quite well together for the better part of 200 years. In fact, John Adams — you know, he of Founding Father fame — seemed to think our form of government is predicated… Read more »
My friend, If the founding fathers would have been Christian nationalists, then they would not have ensured that Christianity could not be favored over any other religion. They would have set things up in such a way as to allow the government to promote Christianity. The founding fathers knew what they were doing was an experiment, in that most all other nations at the time were indeed founded upon some sort of religion, whether it be Christianity, some form of Christianity like Catholic, Hindu, Islam, etc.. Our founding fathers set out to do something completely different by purposely not founding… Read more »
My, but you are historically illiterate. The Founding Fathers were generally Christian, and they built a nation. Ergo, they were Christian nationalists. This isn’t hard. And yes, they did things that ensured Christianity would be favored over any other religion. Among other things, they instituted prayer in Congress and established Thanksgiving as a national holiday. Just to whom do you think they were praying and giving thanks? Remember Justice Joseph Story? He said: The real object of the [First] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all… Read more »
The more you engage the more you make my point. What in the world is, “generally Christian”? What you mean to say is, not all the founders were Christian, and therefore there is no way the ones who were not would have allowed the Christians to simply take over. But the fact is, those founders who were Christians had no interest in taking over in order to found this nation on Christianity, nor any other religion. Rather, they did the Christianly thing by founding this country upon freedom of religion, and freedom in general, allowing each individual to decide for… Read more »
Wilson has repeatedly shown that democratic principles of Constitutional law, limited government, freedom of religion and a bill of rights (said rights understood as coming from God, not being granted by the government) are distinctives of Christian nationalism and only of Christian nationalism. Secular or pagan nationalism cannot provide these things. If you are not familiar with this concept, I can only assume this is your first visit to Wilson’s blog and that you have never read any of his books.
Jennifer, I am not thinking “that democratic principles of Constitutional law, limited government, freedom of religion and a bill of rights” are distinctives of “Christian nationalism”. They are indeed the distinctives of Christianity, but I do not know how you are under the impression that nationalism has anything to do with it. The founding fathers who were Christian saw fit to ensure that Christianity could not be favored by the government of the U.S.A. Rather, they ensured the government could not be involved in the religious affairs of individuals. This should clearly demonstrate the founding fathers who were Christian were… Read more »
Restaurants being open on the Sabbath day, as a work of mercy seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Jeff, think of it this way. How many tens of thousands of people in staying in hotels tonight?
Yes, it seems like we should expect people to plan accordingly. I’m reminded of the Israelites collecting Manna on Friday for the Sabbath.
Also, having a convenience store open seems more justifiable for emergencies than a restaurant.
There are many convenience stores that have restaurants in them.
To hit the “act of mercy”, in a vibrant church community, I’d be inclined to close the restaurant and ensure it is clear that the community is open for hospitality
“Closed for rest and worshipping God. If you are travelling and in need of a meal, join us to feast in His honour”
If we are to allow convenience stores to remain open on the Sabbath, should we not rename them “necessity stores”? The notion of “convenience” seems to run counter to the concept of ceasing from one’s normal work and planning ahead. It’s altogether too convenient to break the Sabbath when the store’s already open and available. Perhaps we should have all our stores and restaurants set up on the outskirts of town with their stopwatches, waiting with bated breath for the 6:00 chime so they can throw their doors open without delay. Nehemiah would approve.
Wilson’s defense was that serving food was a “work of necessity,” not a “work of mercy.” However, I’m not sure that carries any different or heavier weight. A soup kitchen in a homeless shelter serving food on Sunday would be a work of mercy, certainly. A hospital cafeteria serving food on Sunday would be a work of necessity. But Chili’s, McDonald’s, and KFC? I don’t see the wide swath of for-profit restaurants remaining open on Sunday being either necessary or merciful, per se. As you point out, folks on vacation can plan ahead, and the motel lobby can be closed.… Read more »
On point, and I agree pretty much entirely.
Jeff, This should demonstrate to you exactly how theonomy is going to work out in the real world. I mean, I could be wrong, but I do not recall where it is okay to work on the Sabbath if you have a restaurant in a hotel? Does this mean only restaurants in hotels can operate on the Sabbath? Or would this not be fair to other restaurants who do not have a hotel? Should these restaurants tied to hotels only serve those who stay in the hotel on the Sabbath? Or can they open to the public? Who is it… Read more »
Why are you here?
Ideally, no businesses would remain open on Sunday, and we will gradually pursue such a goal.
Your comments show a radical ignorance about what Christian Nationalist/Theonomic positions believe regarding the Mosaic law. Obeying the Law is not contrary to being in Christ.
I am here because I have been reading and listening to Doug Wilson and have decided to engage in the conversation. Are you one of those who only wants to hear from those who agree with you? You say, “Ideally, no businesses would remain open on Sunday, and we will gradually pursue such a goal”. Oh really? I was under the impression these were Sabbath laws? You do understand that Saturday is the Sabbath, right? The early Christians did not begin to meet on Sunday, in order to neglect the Sabbath. The Sabbath, is still Saturday, and the early Christians… Read more »
You say this like it’s scandalous and we’re trying to hide being theonomists. “So then, which is it?” Theonomy > Democracy, obviously. No secret. If you say we are not obligated to any law at all, you are an antinomian who rejects Scripture entirely. We are not saved by the law, but we do uphold the law. Read these: Romans 3:28 Romans 3:31 Matthew 5:17-19 You also clearly have no understanding of the divisions and purposes of the Mosaic Law. The traditional reformed understanding of the Mosaic Law is threefold: Ceremonial: Altered in the NC (Saturday to Sunday, passover to… Read more »
Johnathan, You failed to answer a couple of questions. First, are you keeping the Mosaic law, and if so how well are you preforming? Next, are you ready to do away with the government we now have here in the U.S. in order to replace it with theonomy? I would appreciate an answer to these questions. You may not be hiding the fact that you are a theonomist, but it is a fact that the only way in which to push theonomy through would be through scandalous means. Allow me to share with you some facts. Christians, and the Church… Read more »
Who is it exactly who is going to tell us when it is okay to violate the Mosaic law? It seems to me we have those who want to talk about the government having less power, also wanting the government to tell you exactly how you should live. I think this is due to confusing society and state. Since we’re all so well indoctrinated by statism these days (and even those who consciously reject it still get a hefty dose that is difficult to fully purge), this is an extremely common mistake. In short, it is possible, and highly desirable,… Read more »
Nathan, Okay, let’s start with this, “The establishment of the standard will come to include the government at some point, obviously, but the government is NOT the means by which this will happen”. I agree with this, and the way I understand it is, you first must have a majority of Christians in society, and as this occurs it will naturally move out into the rest of society and include the government. The problem is the fact that we as Christians are now the minority, as our Churches continue to empty out. So then, it would seem as if we… Read more »
Chris, there are a lot of Bible verses regarding musical instruments in worship. Psalm 98 for one.
Also Psalm 150, which seems to allow for drums, among other instruments. Well, cymbals, at least. But as a percussion instrument, its inclusion gives room for drums as well. We cannot go with the uber-strict regulative principle to conclude that pianos are verboten because they are never expressly mentioned. We all know that pianos are string–wait, they’re percussion instruments, too. We can’t exclude xylophones just because they get no mention in Scripture, even though their percussion instruments as well. Drums are in…with their cymbals. David never speaks of pipe organs, but we seem rather fond of them. If we allow… Read more »
Sarah, you might suggest immigrant outreach. Let the world come to them. Just remember, you are fighting the same battle that Luther’s generation fought about what was more holy, family life or the Cloister? BYW, I’d recommend a book called When father’s ruled: Family life in Reformation Europe by Steve Ozment. Harvard Press.
Steve, I think the word equity made it into our Bible translations as a synonym for justice or fair dealings, before it got co-opted by the class- and race-war crowd. A major strategy of theirs is to take words that are already charged, and give them their own special meaning. Other examples include the words racism, belonging, inclusion, sustainable, and safe. Not to mention gay.
I support gay marriage–as long as it’s between a man and a woman. (Because I remember what gay really means.)
Gay like Puddleglum in Harfang.
If you all will notice my letter above, along with Doug’s response, I was wondering if anyone else has noticed how Doug seems to be always so misunderstood? I mean, like Doug was not at all in error concerning federal vision, and federal vision was condemned, but it was not at all because Doug was in error, but rather because it was misunderstood. So then, Doug was not promoting anything in federal vision that any reformed person would want to condemn, rather federal vision was condemned because Doug was misunderstood. In the same way, each time I write and offer… Read more »
Notice the difference when Wilson discusses Jewish/Israeli interests vs how he discusses the interests of Whites. There’s no handwringing about if and how much “racial vainglory”, no cynical deconstruction of what even is a Jew, no labeling of anyone as a Jewish supremacist.
Being White is not an ethnicity.
Anyone who wants to say that whites are not an ethnicity needs to consider whether he would be comfortable saying the same thing about blacks and Jews. Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are definitely ethnicities, but Judaism is a religion, and there are black and oriental jews as while as white and whitish and light brown, there are also some converts to Judaism, you can’t convert to being white (or any other race for that matter. To further explain, we can talk about the differences and similarities between different kinds of white people and black people. The most common definition of… Read more »
Its almost as if they’re different peoples in different circumstances, causing the conversation to have different points of emphasis.
That couldn’t be true though right?
You said it.
” I have become convinced that a lot of folks are coming to such views not out of being convinced they are in fact true, nor out of a true concern for those who are lost, but rather out of selfish concern for their own welfare. ” – Jack This is true of all beliefs of all kinds. Most humans that exist believe what they want to be true, rather than what they are able to determine as true. This of course does not mean that truth does not exist. The argument just gets you nowhere because ultimately it is simply bad… Read more »
Very true about Jack’s comment “out of selfish concern for their own welfare.” That was certainly true of many Christians (real or imagined) in Nazi Germany, various communist countries and other totalitarian regimes who refused to stand up to a wicked government. I’d argue that it’s also true of people like Jack who refuse to call out the current war on all things Christian in the U.S. If you want to see a part of the U.S. that has virtually no Christian influence in the political or cultural sphere, try Portland, Oregon. It ain’t pretty, though. Kevin Dahlgren 🥾 🥾… Read more »
Justin, My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with whether what one would rather believe determines if it is true or not. As an example, I have not made an argument against post millennialism. In other words, I have not made the argument that post millennialism is false. Rather, Doug Wilson is the one who made the argument that there are indeed folks who used to think these things to be weird, scary, and offbeat, who now find these things to be “powerfully attractive” along with “mighty appealing”. Now, did these folks find these distinctives to be powerfully attractive, and… Read more »
“My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with whether what one would rather believe determines if it is true or not.” That’s not the claim I made. It isn’t that you claimed truth depends on belief preference. Its that, since it doesn’t, arguing about belief preference is utterly pointless. “Now, did these folks find these distinctives to be powerfully attractive, and or mighty appealing because they were persuaded from the arguments? Well, not according to Doug” This is not factually true. Doug did not claim that they were not convinced by the arguments. Finding something attractive and being convinced of… Read more »
Justin, That is the exact argument you were making! Here are your own words, “Whether or not they want them to be true does not effect whether or not they are true. If you’re trying to argue that gravity doesn’t exist, pointing out that the defender of gravity is selfishly motivated by a desire not to float away does not in fact disprove gravity”. So yes, it is clear you were making the argument that the reason one holds a certain belief has no bearing upon whether the belief would be true or not. Since I have successfully refuted this… Read more »
Sure is a crying shame that our democratic republic elected a Christian Nationalist while consciously harking back to its long history of faithful Christian leaders, all the way back to the founding fathers, and to the civil government doctrine of Romans 13:1. Who knows what appallingly un-American act of righteousness they’ll do next!
Nathan, You really need to follow the whole of the conversation. I had said several days before the election of Johnson, “I am convinced the fiasco occurring right now in the Republican party concerning the Speaker of the House can be directly tied to Christian nationalism”. Again, this was days before the election of Johnson, and it just so happens we now have a full-fledged Christian nationalist in the chair. Therefore, I was not talking about it being a bad thing to have a Christian elected to the chair. The point was, Christian nationalism was behind the whole fiasco. You… Read more »
Oh, Jan. 6th, you mean that day when Capitol Police opened the doors for FBI agents to lead tourists around the building, staying inside the ropes and causing pretty much no damage to the property (which is public not private btw)? That “threat to our democracy?” You warn that it is dangerous because it displaces democracy. Why is democracy better? Do you like that 63 million babies have been aborted in America? Do you like drag queens and homosexuals and Marxists and foreign wars? CN is obviously more desirable than these. If the party has been “infiltrated by CNs who… Read more »
Johnathan, You are not living in the real world my friend. The Jan. 6th I am talking about would be the one in which thousands of folks were pushing against the barricades until they overcame the police who were attempting to hold them back. They then marched up the steps right to the front door, while others scaled the walls. Once these thousands were inside, there was not much the police could have done but to allow them to do what they willed. You seem to believe there were FBI who incited the crowd, but the question here would be,… Read more »
“… but I don’t believe that they have the same mojo behind them that they used to.”
Wow, I could hardly disagree more. At this point I’m more than half convinced that the highest-ups of world leaders have secret closets with actual penticles circumfrenced with candles and, who knows, maybe even Alcasan heads. Do you actually think that the multigenerational master plans that the Obama’s and Soros’ and Schwab’s are competently executing now were made by mere men?
Doug, you read Crying for Justice in April 2006 (https://dougwils.com/book-log), reviewed it in January 2009, and recommended it to me somewhere along the way (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/806672303), which is why I remember you writing about it.
My second link got lost: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/43398900
Doug Wilson responds to Jack: “However, when the prodigal son found himself envying the pigs their food, this opened his mind to a consideration of the truth.”
Is this a broad slash with the serrated edge?
Are those who don’t realize the appeal of the Moscow Distinctives living and suffering in sin, like the prodigal son? But then then some open their minds and turn toward Moscow and the truth?
Gimme a break. Wilson is not saying that he is the source of truth. Rather, he and his church have been pointing to Christ, who is the truth, in a bold way.
Anyway, I think the illustration was supposed to establish the principle that just because an emotional reaction is involved in an epiphany, doesn’t mean said epiphany is pure wishful thinking.
Michael- I’m the one that asked about the book concerning the imprecatory Psalms, and to which it was suggested that I get a copy of War Psalms of the Prince of Peace (I got a copy, and it is on my list to read yet this year). Thank you for the recommendation of Crying for Justice. I will be sure to check in to that.