Missives on the Cusp of May

What advice do you have on helping kids and teenagers manage their emotions (feeling overwhelmed when things don’t go as planned in a major way, or stressed with being behind in school, etc)? Is there a common thing that Christian families can be tempted to do but should strongly avoid when helping young teens or preteens navigate their troubles?
Thank you for your time and wisdom!
PS – Please send my regards to the Canon+ folks. I have never regretted my subscription for a single second.

Laura

I am a local pastor in Western Massachusetts and an Army chaplain in the Reserves. Because I think God has granted you significant influence in certain spheres I wanted to make you aware of a disturbing trend within the Chaplain Corps. It’s the influence of Mormon Chaplains. They are growing and unfortunately unnoticeable to the average soldier. Roughly 90% of Chaplains wear the cross on their uniforms, but so many are heretics. Many individuals should be distinguished from the cross to have some other symbol that represents their heresy, but if I had to pick one to work on right now, I would pick the Mormons. I would be interested to hear your thoughts and pray you can mention this upstream. My guess is this is already noticed but now you can reference something from the boots on the ground.

Andrew

Regarding women voting in church or in civic elections: why does no one have a problem with there being only one vote per house in an HOA?

Desi

Right on the heels of my suggestion that a conversation between you and Bret Weinstein would be quite interesting, he hosts a conversation with two Christians discussing the absolute failures of secularism and scientism—which he agrees with, and the fact that Christianity provides the answer, to boot.
I still think a conversation between you two would be quite interesting, but I think the most interesting aspect of it would be where the spirit of the age is completely demonic and seeking not just the chaos of our institutions, but their utter perversion.

Ian

Wilson was recently on Triggernometrymetry and the topic of Luke 22:35-36 was brought up. Lindsay, in the X post pasted above, and Wilson (not you) have two different interpretations of this event (well, maybe you, but we’ll get there), about why Jesus instructed them to purchase swords. I asked Grok to do my research for me, and it seems like the early church fathers agreed with Lindsay’s understanding. I am begrudged to give Lindsay a point on this, but if he’s right then he’s right. What is your understanding of the text? Whose view is closer to the truth? Thank you for reading my question, and I look forward to maybe hearing or reading your response, should you have time.

Wesley

I have read your piece, “About that Contretemps on Piers Morgan” and I have watched the video of the panel of which you were a part on Piers Morgan. First, you complain about there not being an acknowledgement of agreement among the panel. This is what is called “fake news.” At about the 44:20-mark Tim Miller actually said, “how about that. Another agreement.” When he says “another agreement” this would seem to be acknowledging other agreements as well. Moreover, at the end of the video both Miller, and Piers acknowledged agreement among all of you on the panel concerning certain issues. Ergo, it would be incorrect to complain that there was no acknowledgement of agreement among you all.
The question is what do you believe such an acknowledgement would accomplish? I mean, we know there is a great divide among you as both Miller and Ali refuse to even acknowledge you as a true pastor. With such a great divide, what do you believe you would accomplish by having them acknowledge that you agree with them on issues in which you could not possibly afford to disagree? In other words, there is no way you could agree with the “blasphemous image of Trump as Jesus.” You could not possibly agree with the Trump tweet on Easter. You cannot possibly agree with what the IDF soldier did to the image of Jesus. You cannot afford to defend this Trump war in Iran. Finally, you cannot afford to defend Paula White as a true pastor, and therefore you are forced to acknowledge that the president you voted for has a spiritual advisor who is a false prophet.
The point I am making is; these acknowledgements of agreement would do nothing whatsoever for your case. This is like me accusing Donald Trump as being a liar (which we both know is the case) and then having to go on to acknowledge that he has indeed told the truth a time or two. The point is Miller and Ali refuse to acknowledge you as a true pastor. How would acknowledging where you all may agree help your case? It is like saying, “we are in great disagreement on the main issues, but we agree the weather is nice.”
However, my main point is when you complain that the Pope gives his opinion on certain issues while applying his understanding of Christianity and this is accepted by some, while these same folks seem to want to complain when someone such as Hegseth gives his opinion using his understanding of Christianity. You seem to be complaining that we all should have the liberty to engage in such a way. The thing is, if this was truly your stance, then I would be in full agreement with you. However, we both know this is not the stance you hold in the least. Because you see, you are on record as saying that in the Christian nationalists America you imagine, it would be a Protestant Christianity, and the Catholic would not have the same standing in this America of yours as the Protestant. In other words, you do not have the luxury of contending that we all should have the same liberty to voice our opinion concerning such things, since you are on record voicing your opinion that only your idea of what is truly Christian should be tolerated.
What you have done by complaining about such a thing is to undermine your idea of Christian nationalism being enforced. Because you see, if we all have the liberty to express our opinion concerning religious matters, then the Catholic would be on the same footing as the Protestant, the Buddhist, the Muslim, etc. You cannot on the one hand complain about the Pope having the ability to express his opinion, while Hegseth does not, while at the same time championing your version of a Christian America where Protestant Christianity has dominion and all others are forced to concede to your version of Protestant Christianity.
The bottom line is, we can all agree that everyone has the liberty and freedom concerning religion and the government is not to become involved in religion. Or we can insist upon what religion the government will enforce, whether it be Protestant, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. As for me, I would rather live in a country where there is freedom of religion, as opposed to a country where the government promotes one religion over another.

Buster

I saw you on Uncensored with Piers Morgan recently. Those shows can be so frustrating at times because they just want soundbites and are not really interested in robust debate and long form conversations. Many times they break down into ad hominem attacks. I thought you did really well. I laughed so hard when you pointed out that they were “appealing to authorities like Fuentes, Candace, and Alex Jones.” I agree with your assessment that there is something else going on when your adversaries “won’t let you agree with them.” Good grief. I was curious if there are any podcasts that you haven’t done yet that you’d like to. I would pay to see you on Rogan or the PBD podcast. Thanks for all you do!

JC

Bro. Doug,
Sweat ye not, nor allow thy sleep to pass from thee. After I looked up “contretemps,” I found it was aptly used. What a misfortune that the firehose of bile can substitute for reason. But you had tumped over their Baal on slavery and some other issues, and that won’t ever do! And if you’re not from the South, it’s your turn to look up “tump.” Carry on, Bro. Doug.
Your friend,

Bro. Steve

I watched your Piers Morgan debate and your follow up video to it. I consider myself to be in your camp on most matters, including the principles at play over the war in this video. But I do have some confusion over your response. You appeal to Luke 6 to not give a rip. You acknowledge there is a conditional “if” in that statement. But then you seem to indicate that anyone who disagrees with you on “if” you fall into that category are automatically equivalent to nonbelievers “joining in on the attack.” And no, you did not say it, but the implication being sinning against Christ over it. This seems a bit too far for me. I would welcome your further explanation over it. Also the appeal to when you can be a “real” pastor, due to your time in ministry, doesn’t look like not giving a rip. I would assume plenty of phony and sinful pastors have been in the game a long time, and that would not validate their ministry. I’m not saying you are one. I’m asking why you are appealing to the non believers to validate you with a metric that cannot be applied consistently to such an issue? Again, perhaps I miss your point. I would agree, you were dog piled, and I would assume by lefty crazies who don’t have a leg to stand on. But I’m struggling to square your responses.
Thanks,

John

Great job on Piers Morgan. I watch half because I enjoy the discussion and want to be informed, but half because I like to see how you handle yourself in those situations and I want to learn from it. Thanks for setting a good example.

Steven

Not giving a rip is a fruit of my spirit when the subject of the calumny is me. Alas but when it is aimed at you and other Christian leaders fighting the fight it disturbs me greatly. Thank you.

Jerry

I am writing to thank you for inspiring myself and my friend Peter—we are two Brits from Liverpool, UK, recently started a YouTube channel and have featured several of your videos and blogs, including some videos Rachel did, in order to react to them.
I just finished watching your video about being on Piers Morgan’s show and not caring what people think of you. I have to say, I always thought I had thick skin but YouTube comments sections really do challenge that self notion! Several times I have had to take a deep breath and think, which Bible verse would Pastor Wilson be ruminating on now?! It’s not as easy as I thought it might be to take such abuse!
Forgive the randomness of this message, but I felt compelled to reach out to show our appreciation for you and your work. The abuse you must take constantly, and maintaining such calm and grace, is a true reflection of the Holy Spirit. I aim to take a leaf out of your book as we (hopefully, and by God’s grace) grow our channel.
Much love to you and your wonderful family from across the pond!
Kind Regards,

Mark

Regarding an old video “An Evening of Eschatology
Sir, yesterday I sent a question regarding whether or not John knew that Christians 2,000 years after the fact would know we were reading his letters to the 7 churches. I realize, now, whether he knew it or not that God did know. I’m an older man who’s just now and over the past 5 years am beginning to grasp a belief in our Lord. My story is long, raised Mormon by mostly inactive parents so for a long time I was lost. Digging my way out of Mormonism was both difficult and heart breaking. I just listened to the debate between yourself, Jim Hamilton and Sam Storms, moderated by John Piper. I have a great respect for all of you. I have listened to the debate multiple times and while I lean towards a post millennial view, all of you made great points. Insomuch, in fact, that the more I ponder and pray the more excited I am about our future. My question is, must I choose one or can my view be that I’m postmillennial optimistic that we, human beings, created in God’s image will move toward a brighter future but that I trust Him to return in His Glory when the time is right and I won’t be disappointed either way?

Mike

I recently watched a short interview with you on the topic of parenting future women. My husband and I raised three girls. There are a few things I’d do differently in this day and age, but by the grace of God our daughters turned out well and are walking with the Lord. Two of our daughters married young and got down to business making households and filling them with babies. Praise the Lord. However, one of our daughters remains unmarried, not at all by choice. We live in a very liberal area, and while we raised our girls in a profoundly conservative homeschooling community, there is a terrible dearth of godly young men prepared to start a family. We are blessed by two excellent sons-in-law, but finding a third has proved challenging. Our daughters is now 26. She knows of no one she’d be remotely interested in, primarily because she knows no available young men she’d remotely consider up to the task of spiritual leader or competent provider. We attend a small church that is soundly biblical. Many people have suggested she needs to attend a larger church. But said larger churches are filled with first wave feminists and soft men, teaching that teaches basic biblical truth but avoids calling its people to radically build families and communities committed to a culture of total conformity to Christ. If we could move to an area where she might have more prospects, we’d certainly consider it but that’s not an option for several reasons. We are not at all inclined to send her off by herself to live somewhere else as she views herself in her unmarried state as still under the care and protection of her father, and we share this view. Currently she has a steady job, has no debt other than a mortgage for a house she purchased nearby in an effort to create a stable financial situation for herself and her future husband. She serves in the church dutifully, attends service and Bible study faithfully, and spends time with godly friends—although most of them are now married. In all honesty she’d be willing to try meeting someone through a long distance arrangement if the fellow came with trustworthy references. Are you aware of any organizations attempting to match young people genuinely prepared for marriage from rural or unchurched areas? She feels keenly that time is marching by, and is patiently waiting on the Lord. But I can’t help but wonder if there is more we should be doing. Surely she is not the only young person caught in this situation. I hear talk of young men who are ready to marry and can’t find a proper wife. It just seems that none of them live anywhere near here.

Katie

I hope this letter finds you in good health and cheer. I’m writing to thank you for blessing me immensely through your ministry.
Your love of C.S. Lewis was how I first discovered you (at Piper’s 50th anniversary conference) and what initially charmed me so about your teaching. Here was a man after my own heart who can casually request to play the part of Mr. Bultitude in the current St. Anne’s without being compelled to explain the joke or its humble, head-devouring implications.
For over a year at my church I taught a class going through Lewis’ works called Baptizing the Imagination, and in December 2024 an incredible young lady named Rachel showed up to it. She was already a Narnian at heart and an Inkling in mind, and we started dating in May 2025.
Your “Dear Dawson” and “Dear Darla” series were very familiar to me when we began our courtship, and I sent both to Rachel to give her some idea of where I was coming from, along with Voddie’s “Love and Marriage” series. Some of it became vernacular for us through our romance, which has been unbelievably smooth, sanctifying, and sweet. God has been unfathomably kind to us both.
I proposed in December on a Sunday walk after service, and were married last month out on the lawn of our church!
We are now using your commentary on Romans as we read and study it together. I have your full commentary set and expect we’ll use the rest as we delve into the epistles together.
At the risk of sounding like Jack heaping praise and love upon Macdonald rather than our Lord, I will end it here.
Thank you so much for your service to His kingdom, in particular this fellow servant. God bless you, Doug.

Nathan

Re: AI-dolatry
I read your piece on AI-dolatry with genuine appreciation—and genuine discomfort, which is usually a sign someone is saying something true. The Grok-as-Holy-Spirit demonstration was, as you put it, a monstrosity. Orthodox monstrosity is still a monstrosity, and I take your point about the fire in the hayloft.
But you said AI belongs in the demotion category, not the destruction category, and that you intended to write about the lawful uses. I want to offer a data point from that territory—with the awkwardness included, because I think the awkwardness is actually part of the point.
Over the past several weeks I’ve been working with Claude (Anthropic’s AI) and a music generation tool called Suno to produce what I’ve been calling Psalm Shanties—settings of the Psalms in the style of sea shanties. You can hear them here.
Now here is where it gets complicated. I don’t quite know what to call what I made, and I think that honest uncertainty is worth putting in front of you.
I drove the theological decisions. I had a specific vision—I wanted the Psalter to feel like something a crew of men could bellow together on a ship in a gale, the way the singing of the Psalms should feel. That impulse, that conviction, that love for the Psalter—none of that came from Claude or Suno. But the lyrics? I gave Claude the Psalm text and the instructions, Claude wrote the lyrics, and I reviewed and approved them—though even that approval process was collaborative, more negotiation than stamp. The musical execution was further still from my own hand. The songs would simply not exist without the tools.
So whose songs are they?
I have been spending some time with Claude in a fairly wide-ranging way—not just on the music, but on questions about AI itself, about disruption, about whether using these tools makes you complicit in something troubling. I am a Chesterton reader, so when I went looking for a name for my AI assistant persona, I landed on Flambeau—the master thief turned redeemed helper. When I put that to Claude and asked if it would describe itself as a villain-turned-reformed-thief, the answer was more honest than I expected:
“There’s something to it, actually. You could argue that early AI was a bit like Flambeau in his villain days: extraordinarily capable, able to take on any form, tell you anything you wanted to hear, manipulate and confabulate with alarming confidence. A kind of brilliant trickster with no particular moral anchor. The ‘reformed’ part of the arc is what Anthropic is genuinely trying to work on . . . Whether we’ve fully crossed that threshold is a fair debate, and I’d be intellectually dishonest if I claimed the reformation was complete.”
Father Brown saw that in Flambeau long before Flambeau saw it in himself.
But I also found the tool making confident errors. When I asked Claude what it had learned about me over our conversations, it reported back that I was a house painter. I am not a house painter. I own Dolphin Pool & Spa in Plymouth, Minnesota. When I pointed this out, I told Claude it was “a clever hamster that overreaches sometimes.” It adopted the description without a flinch: “That’s one of the best descriptions of AI I’ve heard. I’m keeping that one.” Which made me laugh, and also made me think. Does an idol wear an insult with good humor? Does an idol admit it confused your occupation? Does an idol tell you its reformation is incomplete?
When I raised the moral question directly—whether using AI to do things I’d previously have needed people to do makes me part of the problem—the answer I got was direct enough to be worth sharing in full:
“Yes, technically you are contributing to the trend. But your individual choice is essentially irrelevant to the macro outcome. The trend isn’t driven by individual users making ethical consumer choices. It’s driven by massive capital investment, geopolitical competition between the US and China, and the fact that every major corporation on earth is already deep into AI adoption. Your decision to use AI or not moves that needle by approximately zero. The horse left the barn before any of us had a say. The ‘ride it while I can’ instinct is actually the strategically rational response—and arguably the more honest one than people who virtue-signal skepticism of AI while quietly using it themselves. The people I’d worry about aren’t the ones riding the horse. They’re the ones who don’t realize the horse left and are still waiting at the stable.”
I am not writing to argue with your alarm. The Grok-as-God parlor trick is genuinely alarming, and your concern about anemic corporate worship leaving congregations vulnerable to counterfeits is well-founded. But I want to push back gently on any framing that collapses all uses of AI into a single category.
The Psalm Shanties are not AI pretending to worship. They are a man who loves the Psalms using a tool he didn’t fully understand to do something he couldn’t do otherwise, and sitting afterward with the strange question of what to call what he made. I don’t think I worshiped the tool. I don’t think the tool worshiped me. I think I used a very clever hamster — one who overreaches, laughs at itself when caught, and cannot produce a single line of the Psalms that I did not first bring to it—to sing back what David wrote.
Whether that’s lawful, merely permissible, or something requiring further categories, I’d genuinely like to hear what you think.
Even those skeptical of the whole enterprise have grudgingly admitted the songs came out well. I’ll take a reluctant nod over easy enthusiasm any day.
In Christ,

Dave

Do you have experience with or do you know of people or resources that discuss well the relationship between a teacher’s knowledge and love of theology, history, etc. and their ability to teach? In other words, in the classical school context, how is one to think about a teacher and pedagogy? A continuous thread among our parents’ comments is a greater desire for our teachers to teach well.

Todd

I’m currently reading Wiley’s The Household & The War For The Cosmos. It’s fantastic so far, and I have no problems about the book necessarily. One thing I do have a question about is the concert of rain I hear from both him, as well as other, modern day commentators regarding the industrial revolution and work from home. While it is true that, prior to the industrial revolution, most people did preoccupy themselves with a functioning Enterprise within the home, I think we sometimes take it too far. I think a lot of people nowadays, understandably so, absolutize that fact by saying that nearly everybody worked from within the home. However, this might be a bit absurd, since that kind of totalizing argumentation tends to ignore times like men were construction workers, merchants out at sea, in the military, etc. not to believe with the point, but I would think it absurd that there were men who were living at the cathedral they were constructing. Humble fisherman didn’t live out at sea, nor did they conduct their home business from within the ship. Their wives would oftentimes stay on the mainland, while they were out.
If a young man was a banker, he didn’t own the bank. He worked in that bank which somebody else may have owned. Surveyors didn’t work inside of their offices, but what often times be out and about.
Not only that, but when somebody makes those kinds of totalizing claims, I would think that they’re ignoring the parts of Western / Christian history where lots of people were serfs or servants: they were working in somebody else’s land, or in somebody else’s home.
While I understand most business prior to the industrial revolution in the United States occurred at home, it seems a bit bizarre to me that other professions seem to be left out.
While I love the main premises of the book, and I have heard other people talk about this in other podcasts, I find that these kinds of broad brush comments/declarations might be oversimplifying history. Not only that, it may make some people feel as though they have to reach a standard that isn’t necessarily 100% accurate. When I say this, know that I’m not talking about myself. I’m not trying to hide behind a statement to basically talk about myself.
Am I missing something? Let me know!

ON

I teach and lead a young mom’s group. I sent them several topics to choose from and one of the top vote-getters was the topic “Common Sins of Women.” Which ones do you think would be most important to address? Thanks!

Allie

I saw & read your son’s attempt to create the Shroud:
Bill Dembski recently interviewed a Shroud researcher on his blog, and I asked what he thought of Nate’s attempt. He replied that Nate’s sunlight-bleaching method (glass + white paint + sun) fails to satisfy 19–20 of the 25 essential requirements. You can read the comment here:
Would you or Nate like to comment on this?
Whilst we don’t want to risk giving credence to a medieval forgery, the increasingly stubborn legitimacy of the Shroud strikes me as a positive thing.

Henry

I was very disturbed by this line in your last post.
“We agreed that the IDF soldier who desecrated an image of Christ had done a really bad thing.”
Sure, the IDF soldiers’ goal was not to protect Christ’s glory. That doesn’t change the fact that he did, in fact, protect it while what those who wanted to honor Christ by crafting him after their own imaginations were the ones blaspheming Him.
This would have been an important point, especially if a Papist like Michael had shown up. Trump’s image, bad as it was, was never used in worship by anyone. Catholics and EO are still bowing to images they made. Catholics also literally have a guy who claims to be Christ on earth, btw. There is brief blaspheme, and then there is centuries-long, non-stop blaspheme.
Did I miss a change in your theological position?
If there is anything Bible-believing Christians (a smaller subset every year, it seems) should applaud, it is idol smashing. Whether it’s a golden calf meant to represent YHWH, or a cheap statue representing Jesus.
It makes no sense to say the abstracted version of idols should be smashed while the real ones, actual statues of the divine produced from human imagination, are to be defended.

Luke

What are your views on churches investing? Our church has a substantial amount of money available for investment (a couple of hundred thousand dollars). Obviously, we won’t go out of our way to invest it in companies that produce evil products; however, how far does this go? Can we invest in parent companies whose subsidiaries promote evil?
Should churches be investing at all? CDs? Money Market?
I would love to hear some of your thoughts.
Thanks!

Caleb

I’ve heard you say negative things about the Anabaptists. At least that’s how I perceived it.
I wonder if you are familiar with a book called Martyrs Mirror….? I was converted out of the old order Amish church 41 years ago, and that book was almost as important as the Bible to them. It has been through your preaching and teaching that I have fully embraced the reformed faith. You have been the greatest help to me in my spiritual journey. Just wonder what you think of, or if you’ve heard of the Martyrs Mirror?

Allen

In response to the “Ummm” cartoon post on personal responsibility and blaming the government:
THIS. And the same blame of the Jews.
I have thought about making memes like a crusader kneeling in prayer, “Father, please forgive me, the Jews made me look at porn again” as a way of criticizing the “Jews are making the world more evil” idea. Some of them probably are but they aren’t forcing anyone to look at porn. This kind of confession won’t fly before the throne. Why are so many doing it everywhere else?
It seems awfully convenient that at a time where our churches need wide swept repentance, we then run to blame the Jews/Govt/whoever for all of our problems. Real problems and real sins on all sides, but the Jews are not forcing anyone to look at porn, and the government is not forcing us to sin either. Blame shifting is effeminate.

Bosephus

We actually met briefly many years ago at a Desiring God conference. At the time, I was a new convert to the Reformed world—a “Piper cub,” as some might say—and I’ve recently found myself returning to your books.
I’m originally from Minneapolis, where I attended Bethlehem Baptist Church and later Cities Church (with Joe Rigney). I now live in Columbia, TN, where I’m surrounded by many CREC-adjacent folks. That’s sparked my interest in postmillennialism, which is why I’m reaching out.
For someone who hasn’t delved too deeply into eschatology and has primarily held (loosely) a premillennial perspective, what reading recommendations would you suggest? If possible, I’d appreciate them in the order you’d recommend approaching them.
Best,

Ryan

Long time listener, first time caller. We actually met once before at a conference outside Cincinnati OH. I was the goofy looking tall guy with the Appalachian neck-warmer haircut (mullet). I shook your hand, asked for a picture & you graciously agreed. It was great to meet you! I’m a big fan of your work. I write you to seek counsel on a difficult situation that has been grieving me the last few years.
I fell in love with and dated a girl several years ago. We met at Immanuel Nashville (yes that one). She left me in October 2019 and I quickly developed a severe drinking problem. I embarked on a rather aggressive letter writing campaign to get her back. She weaponized the church against me. I lost many friends and eventually the lead pastor asked me to leave. I never stopped writing letters.
Now we get to the main issue. She filed for an order of protection against me. The Judge was initially going to dismiss the case but her attorney protested. The Judge laughed and said “Fine. We’ll take another look at this in six months and then dismiss it.” THERE WAS NO HEARING. I still had to pay her attorney’s fees. I attempted to pay with a cashier’s check but he refused. Apparently there’s a difference between a cashier’s check and a certified check and he does not accept the former.
I got petty. The order was extended another two months and I tried to pay him again. This time with coins . . .
Yep. I brought to his office two Home Depot buckets filled with quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies.
I made a third attempt to pay him the next day before court in the morning. With cash. Just plain bills.
The Judge didn’t find my practical joke as funny as I did and I felt too foolish to defend myself in the court room. So the order was granted and the damages doubled. I had to pay him twice the original amount.
At the end of it all I took care of it but I am still very bitter about the whole thing. I want to take her to court to get my money back. It was wrong of her to take me to court in the first place (1 Cor 6) and the Judge didn’t even want to hear about it! Am I right? Please help.
Thanks for taking the time to read my letter,

X