The Old Tuesday Letters Ploy

Dear Friends,
I wish to ask forgiveness from Doug Wilson for comments I have made in the past re: the Sitler case. I’m not sure which internet site where that may have happened, as it was a while ago. I will try to find it to make necessary retractions.

Here I will say that, without having all access to the facts, it seems to me that when all people forsook Sitler, Pastor Wilson did not. This speaks a lot about his commitment to pastoring people regardless of what has publicly been stated about this incident.

Brian Harrington

You hit the nail on the head with this article. American “Christians” rarely read their Bibles. But when they do, the text is clear to them. But the American “Christian” is not willing to follow where the text is trying to lead them. So they do all kinds of things to convince themselves that the Bible doesn’t mean what it plainly says. It’s really just the first sin all over again. “Did God really say not to eat of the fruit, that women shouldn’t preach, that He made them male and female, etc.” Two questions for you.

When people fall into this self-deception, are they aware that it’s happening? Or are they fully aware that they should be willing to submit to wherever the Word takes them, but listen to alternative teaching to dull the conviction?

It sure seems like I Cor. 11 is pretty clear in the teaching of the head-covering. Paul appeals to creation for his reasoning, which would seem to transcend culture at the time. RC Sproul certainly thought we should take the text as plainly laid out. . But almost all of the American church bends over backward to tell us why the text doesn’t really mean what it seems to say, even in the most conservative churches. What gives?

Roger

This reminds me of a conversation I had with another Christian woman about clothes. “I am not going to wear skirts all the time!” she said. At which point I realized that the issue wasn’t so much the skirts as it was “would we wear them if that’s what God required of us?” Now I find myself contemplating almost the exact same thing about head coverings (which made your list). I’ve heard very similar statements “not going to wear one!” But what if that was exactly what God was asking us to do, for the very same reasons that you outlined in your post. Because God said it, because it symbolizes that very authority structure between husband and wife, because it symbolizes it to the gathered church . . . I am sincerely struggling with why this command gets a carve out with otherwise committed complementarians. If our bottom line problem is submission to Scripture no matter what, no matter what is changing in the culture around us, do we have the right to change that symbol? Any help appreciated.

CCW

As someone who thoroughly agrees that reality takes precedence over our sinful imaginations and pretensions, I am behooved to point out that there is no such thing as a yellow chickadee (at least, on this side of the pond.)

Carry on!

Carson

I had an epiphany. This is the reason why I have an aversion to the drudgery of washing dishes . . . failure to submit to the idea that the buck really does stop here when it comes to the house and that making a home homey is my job. I would really rather be doing stuff on my computer. It is a willful failure to live up to an obligation. I was also wondering if you would elaborate more on that idea that sloppy women who prioritize comfort over attractiveness are refusing to be the glory.

Iva

Is “travestitism” is a typo or a pun?

Stephen

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on the Ahmari/French debate. Culture is rooted in metaphysical notions of nature and that has a religious root to it. Ergo culture will express one’s deepest theologico-philosophical worldview.

Ok, but now to a different topic but one that your analysis of the debate reminded me something about. I’m pretty sure it was you, about 90-95% sure, but maybe it was your former partner Douglas Jones. I want to ask you if it was you who took the position that child pornography itself should not be illegal but that activities related to it should be illegal and that images used could be used as evidence in a court of law. Was that you?

I remember reading this around the late 90’s in a website of Calvinists around who took an even stronger view on you about establishing a Protestant nation were staunch critics of yours. They even wanted to reconstitute the old Scottish Solemn League and Covenant as a kind of basis for a legal order. It was on their website that I read what I was sure were your words that described the position I summarized above.

Could you clarify if that was you? If so, is that your position today?

Thanks

Javier

Would you be able to do another post on the David Daleiden story? It sounds like his trial is getting started and we need as many people following it as possible. This article [below] is incredible:

James

The title on your cartoon reads like a cheap snipe at your own father, which given your past respectful references to him, is certainly not what you meant. I’d suggest changing the title.

Steve

I always get a chuckle from your Friday cartoons. Appreciated the reference to your father’s bitterness book. Great book. I heard a rumor there is some type of biography in the works. Is their truth to that? He shared on CrossPolitic once. What a great blessing!

Nathan

If it were an actual scrapbook you would lose the opportunity to make the offenses worse in the reimagining . . .

Roger

In response to “An Exercise in Missing the Point,” I’m not sure what the context of this is, as I haven’t read the book yet, but the first thing that came to mind was the racial tribalism that we have, even in the church. We are far too quick to find comradery with those that look like us, having the same exterior just as with the vehicles, than with those that are headed in the same spiritual direction

Sam

My wife and I have been ruminating on tattoos and leggings. Noting the position you’ve outlined in a few previous posts we find ourselves in agreement but struggle with a common and obvious objection from the cultural relativists. It goes something like this:

“You are opposed to yoga pants? Well just 50 years ago social conservatives like yourself thought a woman in pants was an abomination. That makes you a hypocrite, you know.”

I’ve heard that objection a thousand times in various times and places and I’m still unsure how to respond to that. Furthermore, I think I’ve seen somewhere you are going to write a book on marijuana. I imagine you won’t be advocating for its use even though many countries have legalized it. How would you respond to that particular argument there? I.e.:

“During the prohibition era guys like you would have been vocal about the perils of legalizing alcohol and yet here we are. You really gonna come out against marijuana with history like that on our side””

My question is less about the contents of the debate and more about the particular mechanism at play in that objection.

Thanks

Jordan

Really appreciative of the worldview misunderstanding you are exposing here. Satan’s main weapon in the garden, in the wilderness, and in hell will be to perpetuate a false narrative. He makes even the most liberal media spinster seem to be a person of great integrity. He murders from the beginning with words. Words that dance around the truth and then seek to stab in the back.

I am struck by how insane the LGBTQ+ movement is and how it is revealing that they have that plus sign, because as you have rightly concluded before; this is a fight over who gets the right to define the dictionary. They keep that plus sign and slowly, but surely, add another letter in their arsenal till one day they have the whole alphabet.

As I was listening to Mohler’s briefing this morning on the moral insanity of drag queen’s in libraries and allowing 12-year-old’s to be dragstars, it clicked how truly hypocritical this whole ploy is. How this is not condemned as child sex slavery can only be answered when we confess as previously mentioned, that Satan has been a murderer from the beginning. This movement, which needs safe rooms due to the mental trauma once the Trump resounded as president, smile while children are being exploited and sacrificed on their altar of autonomy. They pay no mind to the child’s well-being whatsoever. If emotional trauma is considered so sacred to them in one sphere, their avoidance to deal with the consequences of telling a 12-year-old they are ‘pre-straight” and/or “pre-gay” condemns their complicity in these other areas.

You are on the money: there is no such thing as neutral ground. A farmer may not himself “make” the marijuana, but if he cultivates the soil after he places the seed in the ground for it, he is complicit in its existence. Christian’s who want to hang out in “neutral” ground and grow “religious liberty” are complicit in the tyranny that results, even if they did not “make” it. They did everything to coddle it into existence. And we will answer to God for these things.

Despite the frustration that can ensue as I consider these things, it is so hopeful to know that the eternal Word who speaks a better word than the blood of Abel will win. Satan like Cain is a murderer from the beginning. But, Abel though he is dead still speaks. These fools will pass like chaff. Because Jesus is alive and sustaining all things, even these messy situations mentioned above, by the word of his power is causing them to bleed out. He is the Alpha and the Omega, he owns the whole alphabet, and these movements do not threaten that, no matter how many letters they try to take.

Praying for you as you faithfully plod on, brother.

Michael

I really like your wedding exhortations. What puzzles me is how you keep them fresh. Whatever it is, keep on keeping on.
Sometimes marriages run into trouble, but the Saxon Transylvanians used a method that was supposedly effective in keeping folks together.

Perhaps even the suggestion would have been effective.

John