Project 2025 Letters

Probably not the first letter about the Kings Hall podcast from the Ogden guys. Two things that they state in their podcast and I’m curious if they reflect the truth.
Firstly, in explaining to Brian, Eric, Dan and Joel why you were calling for a public cease fire over the Allie Beth Stuckey situation your rationale was because the Blaze told you to make a public statement or else your interview with them would be “round filed.” I’m assuming this was the Steve Deace interview but I may be wrong. Was that really the reason? This seems so antithetical to everything I’ve ever heard from you. Why didn’t you just tell the Blaze to pound sand? If we have to publicly denounce our friends whom we share 99% of agreement in order to get in with Big Conservative Media what’s the point of that? After years of not denouncing your Federal Vision friends this seemed so out of character for you. Tell me it isn’t true please.
Secondly, they claim in the podcast that at the same conference (Right Response conference) you told Joel that the “doors of Moscow” would be closed to him if he went ahead with his series on the Talmud and Jews with Andrew Isker. Surely this isn’t true. When Rod Dreher was being unhinged you offered for him to come and do interviews and speak to NSA, same with Kevin DeYoung and the Moscow mood (to be clear I’m not saying he was being unhinged). One of the things I’ve always appreciated about you and your tribe is the willingness to have the conversation. Why is Joel cancelled rather than allowed into the dialogue? Or was this not a fair framing of what you said?
Thanks Pastor Wilson. God bless,

Shea

I very much appreciate the stance you are taking against the ‘dank right’ or whatever we want to call this collection of rot. However, I must make note of what seems to be a blind spot on your end.
In the COVID times, you were on the butt-end of the gun, firing away by critiquing the squishy pastors who were closing their churches and swinging left. The serrated edge was not spared. I found this mostly great, but I wrote in at times to warn against the ‘dank right’ in our midst who were taking every opportunity to mistrust pastors, making a lot of foolish jesting online, and generally causing a ruckus in our local churches, all in the name of Moscow. Your response at the time was a light acknowledgment that there were a few bad apples out there, but the general response was ¯_(ツ)_/¯ .
Now you find yourself on the barrel end of this type of gun and the level of response is 100x difference. I would encourage this kind of caution no matter which side of the gun you are on next time around.

Nate

Re: “Where Dank Right Reviling Goes”
From the post, “The whole thing starts out predictably enough, with someone abusing various commie miscreants, or Hollywood homos, or treasonous congressional hounds. They hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which Christ also hates, but the way that they hate shows that they have plainly fallen away from their first love. They start out with the right enemies, but instead of fighting them in the way we were commanded to fight them, they spiral downwards into malicious invective.”
From a practical standpoint, how does one determine if someone’s comments are “malicious invective”? By what standard? For example, some softies may interpret terms like “commie miscreants, Hollywood homos, treasonous congressional hounds” as malicious invective (plus they’d be offended by my referring to them as ‘softies’). Also, it seems there’s strong name calling in the Scriptures that some (softies) could interpret as malicious invective.
In short, can you please help me with a detailed definition of Reviling? What is a helpful grid for evaluating acerbic language? Sometimes I feel like Justice Potter Stewart regarding discerning art vs pornography, “I know it when I see it”, but it would be helpful to have a better criteria in which to judge harsh language. Thanks, and I am grateful for your ministry.

Scott

Concerning Dank Anons
I am going through Theopolitan Vision with my church and Leithart mentions that pastors are always at the center of terrible events; deaths, divorces, job losses, etc.
I have to say sorry twice; first because over the past several months I have wondered “why is Doug wasting so much time on these weird online battles”, being that I don’t have any social media I have no clue what is happening but then you said this line: “If the anon was a church member, outwardly dutiful, but online he consistently mocked and attacked the pastors and elders of the church he was part of, then those same elders would need to do something about his overt dishonor” and I realized this is really a pastoral matter.
Second, I have to apologize because I am just generally sorry you have to deal with this stuff.
Farewell and good luck,

Not Anonymous David

On Nazis And Their Sympathizers…
I appreciate you addressing this problem, and largely commend how you have handled it. I do hope it helpful to proffer a small piece of cautionary advice. Remember not to feed the trolls. Yes, this means ignoring obvious trolling. But also, it means to not give a legitimate issue more attention than it is due. Those trying to be the adult in the room (and this is often my mistake, admittedly) want to thoroughly reprove and rebut but may too easily “lose” simply by letting those good intentions carry them into wasted breath, pearls before swine, etc. Don’t be afraid to let them have the last word(s) once you’ve said your piece.
I can’t say from the outside where that line is exactly, but keep a weather eye out for it and shake the dust off your feet when it comes.

NB

“Laced with Poo”
The rules for theories are guided by the scientific method. In other words, in order for a theory to be an actual theory and not just a TINO (theory in name only) all sorts of things and working parts have to come together in order for that designation to be warranted. This is especially true when taking on, dare I say consensus, in a matter that has so many eyewitnesses as the Holocaust. As in the words of the Dude, if these requirements aren’t met it’s, “Yeah, well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.” In order for the proof to be in the pudding you actually have to have pudding. So, show me the pudding. Just how many Jews were actually murdered by the Nazis? Can someone please tell me? The King’s Hall 3 1/2-hour video recently released is like wading through a hurricane. Did they answer this question? You certainly are bombarded by debris coming from all directions. It’s impossible to navigate without getting clobbered. But I would like to think I’m sane. Hitler happened, and Jews died by the millions. There’s concrete proof, right? To question that and replace it as the new narrative one needs an ulterior number, not anecdotal assumptions like the Nazi captives were tortured by the Soviets to say x million. It might have been a good idea before you turned Reformed World into Clown World by indulging this 3rd Reich fantasy to have the receipts handy and not shoved into the cigarette astray of some 1980 Chevy Citation. So here I am in the middle, a.k.a. the eye of the storm, and it seems so peaceful and calm, yet around me it’s chaos. And before the back wall of the eye envelops me and exposes me off to who knows what debris field and flying projectiles. I just want to know how many Jews did die, if any at all. If we as reformed Christians are now giving credence to questioning the validity of the number of Jews who were murdered by Nazis, what is that number? If truth matters, then truth matters and so do the means by which someone comes to that truth. It really is that simple. Isn’t this the point of the whole controversy? That Christians have the liberty and duty and prudence to question such things? Or have I succumbed to the Jew cabal mind control to the do the bidding of red commies for suggesting that people who want to question how many Jews were murdered to just show their math? While they’re at it can they also count the number of gypsies murdered? Are they a part of the cabal that is conflating numbers also? In the time that is being answered I’m off to ponder if we can really trust the number of 1.5-2 million Cambodians the North Vietnamese told us Pol Pot murdered.

Ryan

What do you think about laugh tracks on TV shows? On the one hand, I feel like it insults my intelligence because they are “telling me” I ought to think something is funny.
On the other hand, perhaps it’s a harmless way to help people get into the mood of humor. After all, that’s what the show is for. Plus, we tend to laugh more when we’re in a group that is also laughing.
Thanks.

Caleb

I’m currently reading through the Sermon on the Mount and am at the part about anger. I had a couple of questions and thought, “hey why not ask.”
First, there is a note that some manuscripts differ with the phrase, “angry [without a cause].” This would seem like a pretty big difference. God isn’t threatening judgment for anger period, but for anger without a cause. What is your take on this difference?
Second, Jesus gives three examples with seemingly three consequences.
Anger [without a cause] can incur “judgement.” “Raca” can incur the court.
“You fool” can incur hell. What’s difference?
Finally, it feels like Jesus pulls a switcheroo at the end. He has been talking about people dealing with their own anger. Then He says, “if your brother has something against you” go and make it right. “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court.” This seems like now we are dealing with other people angry at us. Why the switch?
Thanks for your willingness to do these kinds of letters.

John

This question doesn’t come from any specific blog post, but it’s been firmly lodged in my brain for a good while. It regards personal evangelism and fasting, or rather, the evangelical conceptions of those things.
Biblically speaking, how ought a Christian to understand his obligation or relationship to personal evangelism? I know that all of us are commanded to have our defense ready when asked for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15), but apart from this I struggle to connect much of what I hear in evangelical circles on the subject with what I read in Scripture. Can Christians take the otherwise good thing of personal Gospel proclamation and emphasize it more than Scripture does? Have you noticed anything like this, or am I a bit crazy? It just seems like much evangelical emphasis on personal evangelism is based more on assumptions and reasoning (“Well, what could be more important for us to do than talking with people about the Gospel?”) than on right exegeses of Scripture, and that this leads to evangelistic exhortations replacing the full counsel of God in churches.
My questions on the topic of fasting are similar to personal evangelism. Am I missing something, or are the epistles pretty much silent on the topic? The Gospels of course mention this, like in Matthew 6:16-18 (“when you fast”), but I wonder if such a statement is more characteristic of the inter-covenantal period in which Jesus lived and ministered, rather than something that was meant to be perpetuated throughout the duration of the New Covenant? I think ultimately it just seems to me like most people and churches I’ve seen who publicly and regularly emphasize fasting have formed their understandings of fasting through personal experiences rather than Scripture.
These are both things that I do want to grow in personally. But it feels like I’m wading through a lot of eisegetical muck to get there.
How do you understand these concepts of personal evangelism and fasting as they apply to individual Christians? And do you have any resources on those subjects specifically that you have found to be helpful and robustly biblical?
Thank you greatly!

Will

Hey Pastor Doug,
When will your Reading Log be updated to show 2024? Looking forward to seeing what you read last year

Ben

I’ve been following your content for about five years. It’s made a tremendous impact and changing how I see everything, especially your teachings about marriage and family. And yet somehow, I still seem to be the man who misses the mark in every category of marriage and family. If I were to take your advice and ask myself what kind of character I am in this story, I’m at best a buffoon Or a sidekick.
Somehow, I managed to marry a girl who is of the absolute cream of the crop of our generation spiritually speaking, and yet I make her feel 100% completely unappreciated. She finds me to be an entitled, ungrateful, irresponsible, excuse-making child (from a family of the same sort of People).
We’ve had so many returns from the brink of utter marital collapse we couldn’t count them.
I never stop trying to humble myself and pursue biblical change. But I never seem to get there. There are changes in my life, but we always come back to the same core problems.

Buffoon

I’ve been rereading the Chronicles to my children in the evenings. I very much appreciate your 1/7/19 article on Emeth.
Thank you.

Nathan

What are your thoughts on Paul Kingsnorth? To call his arguments unsettling would be an understatement. But I can’t shake the conviction that he may well be right. What say you? Are some technologies irredeemable? Is Christian civilization an oxymoron? Are all our efforts to reform culture a fool’s errand? Or worse? Kingsnorth quoted Lewis in a recent lecture—which sums up his own position quite succinctly:
Religions devised for a social purpose, like Roman emperor-worship or modern attempts to “sell” Christianity as a means of “saving civilisation,” do not come to much. The little knots of Friends who turn their backs on the “World” are those who really transform it.
At some level, I know the phone in my pocket is poison. But I’m loathe to destroy it. My precious! Is there a counter argument? Because I’m struggling to see it.

Michael

If I remember correctly, you use the KJV because the original manuscripts on which it is based have been preserved throughout history. But if that were the case, could we not say that the Protestant tradition does not capture the stance of the true church, since this tradition was not preserved throughout history?

Joel

Tony wrote a letter asking about praying without doubting, and he referenced James 1:6. In reply you wrote, “Tony, the thing we need to ask for without doubting is the wisdom that knows how to count it all joy in the face of trials.”
So, would an example of this be as follows?
I’m twice divorced and facing the prospect of being alone for the rest of my life as one of the consequences, and that is supremely frightening and repugnant to me. When I cry out to God out of extreme (to put it mildly) loneliness to not let me be alone for the rest of my life, my pessimism often turns into doubt that God would deign to grant my prayer.
I seem to hear you saying that I should pray that God would give me the wisdom to face this trial in such a way as to count it joy, and to pray that way without doubting, convinced that God is in control and knows best . . . essentially, you are saying to ask and trust God?

GH

I would like your advice on a rather unique situation. A couple of months ago, a friend from college requested that we do daily phone calls in order to hold him accountable for his sin issues and his schoolwork (he’s still in school). He asked me to do this because he wanted to “finish his semester strong” after struggling to have a good work ethic. Though I had reservations about calling him every single day, I agreed to it because I assumed that he would no longer need my help after the end of the semester. In hindsight, I probably should have known better. He still wants us to call each other every day.
To be fair, I think I know why. When we were in college together, my friend would frequently seek my advice and companionship because he looks up to me as a source of wisdom. While I don’t have a problem with that (although I wouldn’t call myself that wise), I find his insistence on talking to me all the time to be exhausting. As the weeks go by, it seems that the real reason my friend wanted to do these calls is so that he can satiate his desire to talk to me every day again.
Consequently, he tells me about everything going on in his life. Familial relations, academic troubles, spiritual issues . . . People in my generation refer to this phenomenon as “oversharing.” At their worst, these phone calls can devolve into self-pity sessions on my friend’s part where he spends half an hour complaining about how hard his life is and how far he feels from God. For context, he seems to lack key spiritual disciplines: he’s not an active member of a local church, he sometimes skips church to do schoolwork, and he can spend multiple days without praying and/or reading the Word by himself.
Not everything about these calls is bad—it’s nice to be able to pray to the Lord with my friend every day. I also do my best to steer the conversations away from personal issues and toward God and His Word. But honestly . . . my patience is running out. I don’t need to know every single detail of his life and how those things make him feel. My friend would likely defend these daily calls by citing verses such as James 5:16 and Galatians 6:2, but this seems excessive. I’ve tried to tell my friend that he would be better served by having pastoral counsel, but he insists that we keep doing this (he believes some elders at the churches he attends are “out of touch” with the youth).
I’m conflicted. On one hand, these calls are time-consuming and exhausting, and I grow weary of being my friend’s mom. But on the other hand, he enjoys these calls (saying he “needs” this) so I don’t want to make him unhappy. I’ve brought this issue to my local pastor, and while I agree with his advice, I’m afraid I need more assistance. What would you advise me to do in this situation?
Thanks,

Brandon

I studied hard before resorting to phone a friend with this question. This is a home schooling question for someone accustomed to strong meat. Here is some context:
Since the beginning of December I’ve read:
The Seven Laws of Teaching by John M Gregory
The Lost Tools of Learning by Dorothy Sayers
Recovering The Lost Tools Of Learning by you
These were all hugely beneficial, in too many ways to articulate here. Thank you for recommending the first two, and writing the third!
Currently, I’m listening to a conference you did with Steve Wilkins and Peter Lillback on the American War for Independence. It’s fantastic! I’m taking lots of notes for when we cover this time period in the fall of this year, and I’ve replaced some of the books that were on our reading list, for better books, based on what I’ve learned. But for now we are still studying the founding of the American colonies and it’s this time period that I still feel largely ill equipped to teach or even guide the learning through.
Up to this point, my 9-year-old and I have studied British and American history concurrently and chronologically, using primarily An Island Story and This Country of Ours both by H.E. Marshall, incorporating biographies of key figures (mostly by Ingri and Edgar D’Aulaire) and Richard Hannula’s Trial and Triumph. I’ve tried vetting the books/authors we currently use and some we had planned to use, but without my historical senses being exercised by reason of use, this hasn’t left me with confidence about the veracity of these resources. Can you weigh in on any of the mentioned books or recommend any great books?
Since I am not yet a gifted and learned history teacher, I rely heavily on well-written books and I’ve avoided textbooks. Basically, as I’m not the one who “knows the lesson or truth to be taught,” I rely on books as teachers and act more as a middle man and fellow student. The HE Marshall books were chosen because they “arouse the learner’s mind” as Gregory put it, but now I’m left with the dilemma that although I can chime in with Biblical worldview when I catch things, I probably have “caught” so much from my public school education, that I don’t “catch” nearly enough. Below I’ll list books we have either started or plan to start in the near future, just in case you’re familiar with them, or their authors, although I did not see them in your reading log (I really tried to avoid writing in with all of these details).
This Country of Ours by H.E. Marshall
An Island Story by H.E. Marshall
Misc biographies by Ingrid and Edgar D’Aulaire
Poor Richard by James Daugherty
Abigail Adams: Witness to a Revolution by Natalie S. Bober
George Washington’s World by Genevieve Foster
In short, I’m looking for a dynamic history teacher to invite into our home via great books. For now, specifically dealing with the 1700’s in England and the American Colonies. Know anyone?

Ashton

I really enjoyed reading about how you came to marry Nancy. I loved the sweet picture of your bride, too!
The only thing lacking in your retelling was the actual text of your proposal, but given the Wodehousian haste described, I have helpfully supplied a stand-in, for any other readers who also felt the lack.
Something along the lines of, “Well dash it! I mean, Nancy! You simply MUST marry me!’
Happy Anniversary!

Lauren

Thank you for the work you do for the church in these crazy times, I’ve found that your ministry and that of Canon Plus has brought clarity and greatly helped me keep perspective and my head screwed on straight! In listening to your recent Blog and Mablog post I was compelled to write to you about a situation that our Elder Board has been struggling with.
This is something I’ve been thinking of doing for some time now. In your post entitled “A Sexual Marketplace”, you stated: “If there is a covenant made, but no sexual consummation, then there is no marriage either.” That statement caused me to attempt to look at our situation from a different angle and frankly brought yet more complexity to the problem.
In our congregation there is a professing couple (man and woman) who are elderly (mid 70’s is my guess), regular attendees, both have been widowed and are living together not married. According to the man there has been no intercourse but they share the bed. We wouldn’t have known about the living arrangement had he not brought it up. He has been confronted about this but remains adamant that he feels they are doing nothing unbiblical. He states that they have made a commitment before God to one another and there is no Biblical mandate for a ceremony of any kind or a civil certificate (we may agree on the
latter). His partner is quiet on the subject.
As Elders we are struggling to help him recognize how this affects their public testimony and that of the church’s. Are we missing something here? So . . . Is this
couple sinning? What does Scripture tell us, if anything, regarding the church’s involvement in a marriage? Is there a marriage if the couple’s sexual lives are thing of the past? It seems this has the potential to sabotage the ministry of our church. Any suggestions or resources that would be helpful in rectifying this situation would be greatly appreciated.
In Christ,

Ed

On the whole H1B visa debate thing—which was certainly inarticulately handled, and misinterpreted all over the place—Vivek has previously given policy speeches where he explains that the debate over legal immigration should not be one of numbers, but of setting the criteria for quality candidate for entry high enough, and let the numbers implicitly handle themselves.

Ian

In our Reformed denom we subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism. Q.82 concerning the Lord’s Supper states:
“Q. Should those be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who show by what they profess and how they live that they are unbelieving and ungodly?
A. No, that would dishonor God’s covenant and bring down God’s wrath upon the entire congregation. Therefore, according to the instruction of Christ
and his apostles, the Christian church is duty-bound to exclude such people,
by the official use of the keys of the kingdom, until they reform their lives.”
I was very surprised upon a closer reading recently to see that admitting the unrepentant to the table brings down judgement on the whole assembly. For as long as I’ve been paying attention I’ve understood the wrath/discipline in mentioned in Corinthians to be individual rather than corporate; sort of a “You take it on your own head” approach. Upon re-reading 1 Corinthians 11: 27-32, it appears that it can be read either way—this was also a surprise! The NIV consistently uses plural pronouns and the ESV flips back and forth leaving the door open, somewhat, for it to be read concerning individuals or a group but never one to the exclusion of the other.
A couple of questions:
Does “Open Communion” make sense within this biblical framework or am I still not reading 1 Corinthians 11 properly?
Do churches in the CREC practice open or closed communion?
Do you have any advice for an elder who is now uncertain about serving communion in an environment where the clear majority of elders have no appetite to discuss issues of unrepentance within the body?
Just so that we’re on the same page: the unrepentance I’m thinking of is not that a somebody wore socks and sandals in long pants or that the worship team keeps flubbing the measures between the chorus and the second verse. I am referencing: an unemployed minister who desires to maintain membership but openly opposes the teachings of the denomination concerning sexuality,
a congregant who gathered witnesses to make slanderous and destructive allegations of abuse concerning the minister which were found to be baseless,
multiple mature congregants living with a member of the opposite sex who is not their spouse. There’s probably more here but you get the idea…
If I continue to serve the eucharist in an environment where there are some issues of clear unrepentance, I am kindling God’s wrath towards the whole congregation. If I decline to serve it until these issues are addressed, I am not fulfilling my obligation as an office bearer to God and the faithful portion of the congregation I serve to receive the sacrament. I also cannot single-handedly engage in church discipline and admonition without breaking from the other elders (who will, for certain, discipline me for it) I also believe that resigning is not productive or biblical. And yes, I agreed to be an elder knowing these were already issues within the congregation. For now, I’m wondering whether or not I should continue to serve the Lord’s supper given what the catechism and the Bible teaches concerning unrepentance and whether or not I’m interpreting this properly.
Thanks for your ministry,

Jordan