Letters to Help You Not Think Too Much About What Presents You Might Get

Why should or shouldn’t churches incorporate? And where do you land?

Joshua

In response to “Toppling the Cosplay Satan” I had to chuckle when I read a news article reporting on the monument of Satan in the state capitol of Iowa. The reason is, I sort of thought that the group who placed it there were more than likely not Satanists. As you have revealed, not only were they not Satanists, they do not even believe Satan exists. My thinking was, this group was attempting to make a point, but I do not think the point they were attempting to get across to us as Christians was, “This is the price we need to pay in exchange for our religious liberty . . . liberty for all of us.” No! Actually, I think this group was standing up for the Constitution, which prohibits the government from promoting any religion at all. In other words, Christians want to insist that it is perfectly fine for the government to promote their preferred religion by having things like a monument of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse but would be greatly offended if the government promoted any other religion. This group understood this, and ergo, they went for it all by using Satan.

I believe the point this group was making was, the government is not to promote any religion at all. However, if you Christians want to play this game, then it is not like the government is to only support your preferred religion. In other words, it is probably best to stick to the Constitution keeping the government out of the religion business, and in that way, we would never have to worry about such statues again. It is really not like “This is the price we need to pay in exchange for our religious liberty . . . liberty for all of us,” but more like, “what’s good for the goose.”

If we as Christians would stop attempting to force what it is we believe upon all others, we might find the others would have no problem with us as Christians, and we might just discover we would have a lot more influence in the culture. Or we can continue the insanity of doubling down on the culture wars as we have over the past 5 decades, as the culture continues to become ever more immoral, while our Churches continue to empty out.

Another thing I would have a chuckle about if it were not so sad, is the fact we have a group who erects a monument to Satan who is standing up for the Constitution, and freedom for all, while we have Christians who want to see the Constitution overturned.

Jack

Re: the fake Satanists, surprised you didn’t mention Shift and the Calormenes accidentally summoning the real Tash. “Yes,” said the Dwarf. “And this fool of an Ape, who didn’t believe in Tash, will get more than he bargained for! He called for Tash: Tash has come.”

James

Re:Toppling the Cosplay Satan

I know I am not pointing out a novelty here, but the mixed response to the Iowa Idol Smash has once again illustrated a demoralization problem among conservatives.

I don’t mean “conservatives are too demoralized” (although that’s true). I mean the left understands how to do the demoralizing. When they take scandalous action, they circle the wagons and dare us to do something about it. They need not unanimously, actively support the action. But, almost to a man, they deny all wrongdoing until the shock wears off and the dust settles, at which point the ratchet of new normal has mysteriously moved another notch left. Scattered reports circulate Fox News had their hands on the ratchet, but who really can say?

By contrast, when a Michael Cassidy takes scandalous action, many who would otherwise claim to be on his side join the left’s wagon circle instead. They express regret and distaste until it is turned into mourning for all the people. It may not result in a full ratchet notch gain for the left, but it very often negates the opposite motion from the right. Thus, the demoralization forces tend to mobilize on behalf of the progressive cause no matter who wins the initial skirmish.

I’m not here to argue that Cassidy’s actions were the way I’d have ideally liked things to play out, but we need to take a lesson from Joash, who probably never would have torn down Baal’s altar himself, but knew enough to stand against the mob once it had been done. How much more when we all ostensibly agree Baal is false in the first place?

Wesley

Sir, one thing puzzles me about the recent “Eternal Subordination” controversy: Namely, J. I. Packer taught this economic “subordinationism” rather unapologetically in his very popular “Knowing God,” and I don’t recall a peep of controversy about his position. His take on eternal subordination was quite explicit, after all:

“It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first . . . the obedience of the God-man to the Father while he was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the Incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and Father in heaven.”

If there was any controversy whatsoever about his explicit “subordinationism,” I completely missed it . . . I don’t recall Packer ever being called to account for this position by his evangelical peers (even while he was at times sharply critiqued for other positions he supported).

I personally suspect that this topic only became controversial in recent years due to the growing feminist influence in the church, considering how supporters of Biblical gender roles often defended authority/submission between husband & wife as ontological equals by making analogy with the persons of the Triune God. It almost seems as though the mere acknowledgment that “Yes, two persons can be completely ontologically ‘equal’ but yet exist in a God-ordained relationship of authority/submission” is simply intolerable in our current climate; and any theological point that might lend credence to such ideas must de facto therefore be anathema. What else explains why the teaching of Packer, Lewis, Hodge, and so many others was so completely uncontroversial until just these recent decades?

Would certainly appreciate your thoughts.

Very respectfully submitted,

Daniel

This is a trinity related question, regarding the “filioque” controversy. A couple years ago, I went through John of Damascus’s work “An Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith.” I thought it was a mixed bag. His defense of icon veneration was lame and his arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary was a dubious allegorical argument from Ezekiel 44:2. However, I found his portion on the Trinity to be really good and helpful. He takes the pre-1014 Nicene position. His interpretation of John 20:22 is that we have access to the Spirit only through the Son because the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son. The Son then shares with us all that is his, including the Spirit resting on Him from the Father. It seems to me like there could be a valid concern that the church in the West is confusing the revealed nature of the Triune God by adding that the Spirit also “proceeds from the Son.” For instance, I would not say that the Son and the Spirit are eternally begotten by the Father. That begetting is a distinct relationship which is only revealed between the Father and the Son in the Godhead. It seems like most of the proof texts I have seen for the post-1014 formulation actually describe the church’s relationship to the Spirit through the Son and not the eternal relationship that exists within the Godhead apart from the church. In some sense we receive the Spirit from God the Father and the Son (because all that the Father shares with the Son is ours through the son) but strictly speaking the Spirit only proceeds from the Father to the Son and God has not revealed to us that the Spirit proceeds from the Son to the Father. Am I missing something in the way I am thinking through this? There is certainly a lot more I could read on the issue. Thank you for your clear thinking and teaching on a number of issues. You continue to be a blessing to God’s people. May God continue to bless you and your family.

Josh

In “David and Deception,” you wrote that “all false witness is deception but not all deception is bearing false witness. The rule of thumb, as we see in Scripture, is whether or not it is occurring in time of war, or in what is tantamount to war.”

In light of this statement, could you interact with Colossians 3:9-10? It commands believers to not lie to one another because they have a new-creation-identity. Is lying only okay if it’s directed towards unbelievers? Or is all lying now outlawed under the new covenant?

It seems to me that all lying would be considered sin because God is truth and sin is that which in inconsistent with God’s character. Can you please help me work this in my mind? Thanks!

Caleb

I’m wondering if you have any good recommendations for books that a father could give to his preschool age son. The boy learned to read very young, and loves to do so. With that in mind, we are trying to be very intentional about the books we keep around the house. We already own Sir Bad-a-Lot and others, but I’m specifically looking for age-appropriate books that deal with father-son relationships in a Biblical way. (As opposed to the nonsensical fluffy way) Thanks a million!

L

I just finished reading your article, ‘Federal Vision No Mas’ written several year ago.

I greatly appreciated it. I also identified with it via my subjective understanding. I may be wrong, but I associate with something I discern in this article. Wordsmiths love to use words, even as painters love to use colors. However, too much color and too many words within the canvas of creativity and particularity, even witticism can confuse clarity. Not everyone has colorful minds, and struggle with that which is not laid out in black and white. Yet per Christian doctrine and love in deference to Christ and His kin, there are times it is very wise to carefully brush with black and white.

Lou

Two questions: 1) What is the relationship between resentment and bitterness and how are they resisted?

2) Do you have any advice when considering whether to attend a Christmas family gathering when there are unresolved sin and fellowship issues?

EJ

Really appreciate your work. My family has been attending a large non-denominational church in North Idaho since I was young. In the past 3 years I’ve become more aware and convinced of a CREC/ Reformed position. The emphasis on an optimistic eschatology, family, biblical masculinity, Reformed theology, etc are convictions that I now see as essential to my walk with God. These however are not stressed and most often disagreed with at my current church. Is it wrong of me to leave this church to join the local CREC congregation or should I try to reform the church I’m in? Thank you

JJ

I hope you’re doing well. First of all, I would like to thank you for your blogs, books, and messages. They have all been a true blessing to me and my family. May the Lord continue to bless your labors.

I need your advice/input. I live in the small country town I was raised in. By God’s providence here, a couple of SBC churches have recently hired some Calvinistic pastors. At the same time, my family is currently looking for a new church to go to and I’m quite hard pressed with the options that I have. Which is the better option?

1) A church led by a pastor who is Calvinistic Baptist with a weird bag of Dispy/Covenant Theology. Yet, he’s an unapologetic expository preacher. If the text says it, he will take it at face value and preach with authority. He may preach rapture every once in awhile, yet he’s hard on sin (and not just “outside” sin, he will highlight sins in the backyard) and passionate about doctrine. The liturgy is a bit light but that’s expected in a small Southern town.

or 2) A church led by a pastor who is nothing short of brilliant. He’s a Reformed Baptist that also honors Church History. The Liturgy is more traditional, and he’s got a solid plan to teach people. Yet, he’s a good bit careful in the way he preaches. Definitely isn’t expository.

As the head of my home, I want what’s best for my wife and son. What advice would you give me in choosing one of these two churches?

Seth

You’ve been in the trenches a while. Are you aware of this group/movement claiming to be a part of evangelicalism? 

Rope

I’m truly appalled by the men (whom appear very zealous for the Word of God) that seem incapable of the smallest consideration of personally connecting with you (isn’t that a Matt 18 thing?) before dunking on your name and your church body. You’d think they want to make sure their powder was dry before firing on you in such a public manner. It’s shameful and they diminish their own credibility. Worse yet, they stir up strife among brothers which last I checked is something our Lord is not terribly fond of among brothers, much less pastors. I on the other hand look forward to coming to get a dose of that Moscow mood this summer and will be coming all the way from Dutch Harbor, Alaska to see for myself what’s going on, unlike the cowards that prefer potshots from afar. Cheers!

Lorene

This wouldn’t be just another move to Idaho, which is why I finally decided to write to you directly.

I’m a Teaching Elder in the PCA and I have arrived at this: seriously considering (along with my wife) a move to Idaho. Some of my favorite readings of late have been “21 Maxims for discouraged pastors” and Spurgeon’s lecture “The Minister’s Fainting Fits.” I have a long story . . . To shorten, the bullet points: I’m 41 and was ordained in 2018, but transferred from EPC to PCA in 2021; my wife and I have 6 children, one on the way; because I had a career before ordination, there are possible jobs for me in Moscow.

It seems as though I no longer fit in the PCA. But my conscience is focused on this: I would be leaving this congregation behind, perhaps in dire straits.

I feel isolated and, for the first time ever, thinking I need the wisdom of strangers, for a variety of reasons. Therefore, this message.

By grace, you are a seasoned pastor, and I’d like some wisdom. What are valid reasons for me to “retreat” from this work? The type of congregation I’d like to raise my family in does not exist in the PCA, nor do I think I’m currently able to lead this congregation into such transformation.

At the moment, all I want is to be a member of a congregation where neither I nor family are such “novelty.” I find myself desiring to disciple my family, and simply be a member in the church.

If I were not a pastor, I would already have made this move. However, I am a pastor—and do enjoy what I was ordained to do! I’d appreciate any counsel you would be willing to offer me. I have never retreated from any work before. This would be the first time ever…

I.F.

I must say, as a husband of over 20 years and a father of two teenage daughters, leading my family is very challenging in our modern environment. To my great shame, in my early bachelor years, until I committed to Christ at age 26, I was promiscuous. But there are two things that were striking about this time. First, it was always the women who first initiated, not I (does not alleviate my culpability in the slightest). Second, and what is most striking, is how many former partners I saw at church when I was searching for a church, and most were churchgoers at the time of our indiscretions. What’s important about that is I think many pastors have no clue how many women in the church have non-Christian sex partners outside the church, and many of these women smile and nod when the pastors condemn the men in the church (who are not their partners). I also think the frequent berating of the single men in the Church has the unintended consequence of not only diminishing the Christian men, but making the non-Christian men look better by comparison . . . after all, women spend Monday-Saturday in workplaces, colleges, and social gatherings where their non-Christian options are treated with more respect than the Christian men in their church. No need for response, just thought my experience may be useful. In my 50’s I look back on my 20’s with great regret, and try to share the earned wisdom with the women in my family so my daughters may be the rare virtuous women that the Bible so highly regards. Appreciate your efforts to give pastoral care to women, our society and even the church makes that very painful.

John

A suggestion for a future Ask Doug?

I watched a clip of Dave Rubin interviewing Bret Weinstein. It is a good example of an Atheist wanting to have theism without having God. And having to acknowledge that atheism destructive. I thought it might make a good clip to comment on.

Sam

The Spoken Written Word

Pastor Wilson—I have appreciated your substantive engagements with the recent criticisms by Owen Strachan and Kevin DeYoung (and in earlier similar such posts like IndigniLadies on 2/6/23). It is helpful to hear a distillation of your communicative philosophy and writing strategies for those who have not worked through the fuller treatment of your approach in the book “The Serrated Edge.”

As I recall, though, you and your son Nate have made emphasis on the importance of medium in encountering and/or using vulgarity/obscenity/cursing/swearing. Hence, you would choose to use VidAngel when watching certain films, and Nate admits it would be most difficult to translate Lewis’ brilliant Perelandra into a cinematic medium.

Over the course of the last year or so, I have noticed the increasing proliferation of audio option for your blog posts and wondered if this increasingly utilized medium by the Canon content team changes the way you blog (or plan to write your blog). Where you might have chosen to use a stronger word when it was only written, do you now choose different language since you know your posts will be read and potentially videoed as well? Similarly, as you read current material and/or as you work your way back to some of your acknowledged controversial posts, do you find yourself censoring or substituting words?

Not looking to set a trap or make an indictment—just mostly curious about your process and your intentions with the blog’s increasingly multimedia formats.

A Wannabee Wordsmith

You mentioned several examples of names originally used to taunt groups (Puritan, Methodist, Quaker, Jesuit etc). In support of your point how about “Chicano”? It was originally a derogatory term used to describe lower class Mexican-Americans (usually by upper class Mexican-Americans). But in the 1960’s and 70’s it was embraced as an affirmative label expressing camaraderie and commonality of experience.

Jerry

On Rob Reiner’s movie:

When I was a kid, and that was a long while ago, Rob Reiner was a Meathead. Based on this trailer and its underlying motive, I suppose it remains true.

Andrew

Responding to Living Faith Has No Side Hustles—

My name is Kyle, from Northern VA. I’m a big fan of your work and believer in the Moscow Mood, but I feel that I you are in error in slandering all theologians arrayed against your position as “doing politics.” Their concerns and detractions of the Federal Vision (which you refuse to reject) are real, not political, and I think I can help elucidate that. The NAPARC denominations do not deliberately refuse to understand you/accept your claims. Their jobs are to investigate theological positions that array themselves against standard Orthodoxy (as FV does), not accept simple statement of orthodoxy as proof of orthodoxy. And their investigations (as well as my own) consistently uncover errors. The disagreement is because you are using words differently than they are.

Now, to the elucidation: When the orthodox Reformed say “Active/Living Faith” they mean a mental/spiritual/soulful (assensus, notitia, fiducia) action that WILL result in works, which include Resting-and-Receiving-Obedience (R&RO). When you say “Active Faith” or “Justifying Faith” you mean a faith that does not include “Active Works” like helping old ladies across the street, but does include works of R&RO. This is a big distinction, because you, in your efforts to closer-knit faith and works of obedience (or faithfulness, as you prefer to call good works done through faith) have combined Faith and Works together in your Definition of Justifying Faith. You many a time sound the phrase “Justifying faith is alive”, or “It is not a dead inert faith which comes to salvation, it is alive from the get-go.” This is both true and undisputed among the Reformed world: and I do believe it is disingenuous of you to hold that as a fallback position and give the implication your opponents believe that they do not. Again, the classic Reformed position is that a Justifying Faith will always result in works, but those works play NO part in our justification, whether R&RO or Active works. Classic Reformed Ordo Salutis: Faith (assent, knowledge, belief)–> Justified –> works

Your outline: Faith+Works-of-R&RO –> Justified–> Active Works

While you make a distinction here between R&RO works and Active Works, the distinction between various types of works is not one held by the Reformed Confession. The Catholics to this day refer to their works not as “works” as the Reformed do, but in the same way you refer to R&RO, as gifts. This debate between you and the orthodox Reformed takes the same form as the Reformation debate over justification, but you are on the wrong side of the Tiber.

I say this in love, because I believe we need more men like you. But I also believe you are in theological error, possibly unknowingly. You accuse the orthodox Reformed of not doing theology in their critiques of you. There is a very easy way to ensure this will be manifest—reject Federal Vision, clarify your acceptance of the classical Reformed Ordo Salutis, deny that works of any sort (whether or receiving or active) contribute to your justification, to your being justified. And then repeat these positions loud enough to make even R Scott Clark cry “Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!”

Kyle

Regarding last Monday’s “Faith Has No Side Hustles:”

I was introduced to heresy hunters in the early 1990’s after reading John MacAuthor’s “The Gospel According To Jesus.” I remember being flummoxed about the controversy surrounding it. I thought, “Wait, why are these biblical Christians not understanding this? Have they had a personal discussion with him to try to understand before the attacks?” Last week’s post (and many before it) reminded me of that. It’s like guys going out hunting pheasant, and after a few hours of nothing, start shooting at crows and magpies—“Gotta bring something home!”

Also thanks for the lol quote of the week—“If Kevin DeYoung didn’t already think I cuss too much, I would hurl a few imprecations at it.”

John

“it becomes exasperation for them when the one wielding the rod is also exasperated.”

But is it not also a lesson to teach children that one of the consequences of disobedience is anger, disappointment, etc. by the one they disobeyed? Not in a way that is out of control where parental anger is the driving factor, but a kind of “controlled wrath” that is measured according to the severity of the infraction and intentionally shown to the child in order to drive home the point?

GH

Can you direct me to a description of what exactly you do in Moscow during a Sabbath Dinner? It it just a meal in someone’s home, or do you have certain things you do at the meal? Singing together, topics of discussion? etc…? I hear about it all the time in various posts coming from Moscow but I cannot figure out what exactly happens, and would like to get things like that started in my neck of the woods as well.

Tyler

I just listened to the interview you did with Aaron Renn, where, among other things, you talked about ‘the lies of servant leadership.’ Being a new evangelical Christian (I’m 21 and converted three years ago), this was a take I had never heard and had trouble comprehending. You briefly mentioned that people would argue by quoting Mk 10:42-44 but you didn’t really answer it? I guess my question would be: Can you define in your words what is servant leadership, why you believe it’s wrong and what should we do instead.

A follow up interrogation I had is that at one point you say: ‘Who is a woman at church more likely to want to marry? The janitor or the worship leader?’ You also said (and I’m going to paraphrase here): ‘You should pursue leadership roles because women like that’

My question would be: What about the motivations of our hearts? Wouldn’t it be sinful to want to grow in leadership and manliness to appeal to women and not in order to be pleasing to God? I understand God wants us to be manly but in my experience I can be really motivated to want to grow in these things only because I want girls to like me. And doing it for God becomes an afterthought. So how can we reconcile these two things?

In conclusion I want to clarify that I love your ministry, it is a blessing for me and many friends here in Quebec. I am not asking these questions to argue, judge or declare my disagreement. But in humility I simply want to understand your point better because I believe you posses great wisdom that is valuable for my life.

Also I am French, if some of the things I said weren’t clear, just let me know. And even if you don’t make a video about this could you please still answer? I’d really love to understand more.

Nathaniel

Thanks so much for your ministry, I have profited much from your work. One place that I have not looked into much of what you have to say is Pastoral Ministry.

Here’s my question; what kind of healthy emotional distance should a pastor keep with his congregation? Our church is currently losing many members to death, and so this question came to mind. Of course, you don’t want to be cold and distant. But I’ve also seen pastors deal with death in their congregation with an unhealthy attachment.

This would also apply to things like church discipline, seeing children go apostate, etc.

How do you toe that line?

Thanks in advance!

Chaz