Not a Gray Issue
You may be our congregation’s only hope of settling a dispute which is headed toward splitting our church. You’ve heard of churches splitting over the color of the carpet? We’ll, ours is on the verge of irreconcilable differences along a similar vein. Please, Mr. Wilson, help us! Settle it for us once and for all—- What color IS the cover of the 2020 Cantus Christi?
One of the “I am of grey” camp
KS, I believe you will be pleased to learn that the precise color of the most recent Cantus is Meadow Grey.
Who Do We Think We Are?
After following you and your family for several years as well as having family members become familiar with you, a certain charge has come up—that of arrogance or at least the sin of knowing all the answers. I’m a real Wilson fanboy and therefore biased but it is something I have noticed. In you and your kids teaching you tend to have all the right answers and don’t spend a lot of time discussing your foibles and follies or anything like that. There is a quote in the Serrated Edge where you talk about the modern preacher who only talks about himself and is considered humble whereas the humble man talks about God’s word and is considered arrogant. On the flip side someone like a John Piper who I know you respect, would share some specific sins quite honestly. But the criticisms do come in settings where the Wilsons are discussed and some people take that overconfidence as arrogance. On top of that the average Joe may wander through life feeling quite defeated and then there’s the Wilsons and they’ve got EVERYTHING figured out. I assume you don’t consider yourself arrogant (who does?) but is this a specific choice you have made in your ministry? Do you all truly have it all figured out? How would you answer the charge of arrogance?
AJ, the answer is yes. It is a specific choice. Very early in my ministry I was challenged by the evangelical dogma that I was supposed to open, transparent, and vulnerable in the pulpit. It was the first real controversy I ever had to deal with. This seemed to me to be copping a pose, adopting a faux humility that really would be arrogant. In contrast to this, Peter requires the minister who speaks to do so as the very oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). It may seem arrogant to some, but I believe that submitting to what God tells us to do is the opposite of arrogance.
I’ve been trying to get my head around Christian Nationalism as I have served my country, as you did, and still hope for the best if it can recover from this morass it finds itself in at this time. What are your thoughts on Christian Nationalism? (Good, bad, ugly?)I have been following you for a while and have great respect for your views and your wisdom. Somehow I have been getting the “French Press” on my email and I must admit David French and Jonah Goldberg make some good points concerning the state of conservative politics in our nation today. But, I feel in my gut they may have another agenda not so noble. Sorry Pastor Wilson, I am not your usual deep thinker and eloquent writer. Whatever response you can send my way I would be most grateful. I’ll keep following your podcasts and YouTube videos. Thank you. V/R
Michael, in one respect, asking what Christian nationalism is about is like asking what the food fight in the cafeteria is about. But in another sense, it is simply a broad-based recoil against all the woke nonsense. If you are against All the Stupid, they tag you for a Christian nationalist. I am sure I will be writing a great deal more about this in the run-up to the midterms.
Re: “The Machete of Disobfuscation” The press began pushing the scare-phrase “Christian nationalism” toward the end of the Trump administration. Back then, it referred primarily to the movement of nominally-Christian Trump supporters engaging in heretical, unsavory, often highly ecumenical, syncretistic America-worship, leading up to the 2020 election. If Greg Locke, Robert Jeffress, and Jerry Falwell Jr. are the face of “Christian nationalism”, then God’s people ought have nothing to do with it. And, reasoning thus, I believe that many well-meaning people internalized a “yuck” reaction to the phrase. Then, of course, the press did an about-face, and began labeling every political expression of biblical morality with the newly-minted smear, “Christian nationalism.” The intended effect is to convince those “well-meaning people” that allowing sound exegesis to inform one’s practical and civil morality is to place oneself in danger of the heresy of “Christian nationalism”—which, while remaining strictly undefined, can be understood ostensibly by means of a vague gesture toward January 6th and the Proud Boys.
Josh, yes, and thanks. But this tactic means that it is impossible to have “nothing to do with it.” We are not in charge of what names they may call us.
Your thoughts on banning any/all musical instruments during the Sunday worship service (and the regulative vs normative principle)? Proponents of this position argue that it is a consistent, biblical application of the regulative principle . . . given that there is no explicit permission or example in the New Testament of instrumental use. As well as this, the examples of instrument use in the Old Testament are pre-Christ and linked to ceremonial practice. If one is truly consistent with the regulative principle across the board and does not limit it to the worship service . . . are we not in danger of creating a breeding ground for legalism? Is it adding to God’s law to forbid instruments or anything else for that matter based on his apparent silence? Where do we draw the line?
SG, I believe that consistent Protestantism must adopt the regulative principle in some measure. I prefer the formulation of Hughes Oliphant Old, when he said that “worship must be according to Scripture.” But if you adopt the strict regulative principle, which is that “all that is not expressly warranted is forbidden” it creates a suffocating atmosphere, and a regimen that no one really follows, not even its most ardent advocates. Consistent application of that principle would eliminate singing out loud (we are told to sing in our hearts), would exclude women taking communion (we have no express example of that), would require worshiping on the seventh day, not the first, would eliminate infant baptism, and would ban holding any kind of baptism in a church service. And this list could be much longer.
The Short Answer
An older Christian friend says I should marry this girl that we both know that is a believer as well and wants to be a godly wife.
Only problem is I am not attracted to her at all.
Is that wrong? Is that just my flesh talking or should I pursue a woman that I don’t want to because she is physically attractive?! Please help!!!
Thank you sir!
Joshua, this could be simple and it could be complicated. The short answer is that you should not marry a woman you are not attracted to. That part is simple, as far as it goes. But if everyone you know thinks that she is attractive, or beautiful, or really pretty, and yet you are stubbornly holding out for Miss America, then it is quite possible that your standards of female beauty need to be recalibrated.
The Church as Custodian of Scripture
In your article entitled “KJV 400” you argue for the KJV by saying that the church does and ought to have oversight of the translation of the Bible, and that the KJV satisfies this requirement.
Recently a new translation was published, called the Living Standard Bible. The LSB was published by John MacArthur and translators from the Master’s Seminary. These men are all churchmen, several of whom are pastors and preachers. Further, the LSB was submitted for review to many Christian pastors and lay churchmen for review prior to final publication. However, it appears that The Lockman Foundation owns the copyright.
Would the LSB meet the requirements in your article for church “responsibility”?
Thomas, yes, it meets that one standard better than most. I would still like to see the copyright held by a organization under the authority of the church, but still, this seems to be progress.
You had mentioned in a discussion you were having on the topic of manliness that it was good practice to read biographies of men who’s lives were worth imitation. They were men who conquered kingdoms, climbed mountains, etc. I was wondering if you could recommend some of these specific biographies of men worth imitating? Thank you.
Jacob, you could start with my biography of John Knox, For Kirk and Covenant. I say this, not because I am all that as a biographer, but because it was originally written as part of a series of books that were setting out their subjects as exemplars. But you should also read Dallimore’s volumes on George Whitefield, Iain Murry on Jonathan Edwards, and Metaxas on Wilberforce.
I’m writing in response to your liberty catechism, and also in response to your book recommendation a year ago for “The Maker Versus the Takers” by Jerry Bowyer. Both are fantastic, but I found two pieces I can’t fit together, which is odd, since I thought I was only playing with paleo-conservative Legos. Hopefully, I’m just putting a piece in the wrong place.
In answer 14 of your liberty catechism, you write “the family is the ministry of health, education, and welfare,” a statement I’ve heard from you and others elsewhere. While that makes sense to me, and is supported by Scripture, it seems a bit incomplete.
Commenting on the Judean elite in Jesus’ time in light of Deuteronomy 14:28, Bowyer writes (page 81):
“One thing it did that is particularly relevant at this point is it ‘nationalized’ the poor tithe. In the Old Testament law, the poor tithe was to be administered by the local elders at the gate.”
Thus my immediate question is: In light of Deuteronomy 14:28, is municipal government at least partially responsible for health, education, and welfare? And this raises a broader question: Are municipal and national civil governments different, not just in scope, but in role? So if you’ve written in detail about the interaction between family government and civil government, please point me there.
Even though Bowyer clarifies that there were no civil penalties for failing to pay this tithe, it still seems to imply that municipal government has some responsibility for welfare. Other conservative thinkers have made comments I take to endorse some type of collective, albeit small-scale, model for health, education and welfare. Glenn Sunshine mentioned on his podcast that medieval society didn’t allow physicians, lawyers, and clergy to accept money for services, since their services (health, justice, and salvation, respectively) were priceless and would be corrupted by money. Instead, they were given an “honorarium.” He didn’t clarify where it came from, but I assume it was a local lord. So civil government as “ministry of justice” seems like a description of its core function, but not its complete function. I could give more examples of this line of thinking from Thomas Sowell and others but I think you get the idea. Road building and a university or two are not illegitimate uses of government power, right?
I’m asking because I want to think biblically on political issues like food banks, free clinics (seems like far less arbitrary government than modern healthcare networks), and municipal broadband internet (Verizon almost rhymes with Leviathan).
Thanks so much for your ministry and teaching.
Eric, for the reasons you cite, and others, I do believe that local municipal authorities could have a legitimate but very minor role in relieving distress in a way that fell under welfare. But I would want the bulk of it carried by families, and caring for the homeless and indigent being done by the churches. But the civil magistrate has to do something with the homeless druggie, or the mentally unstable who need to be cared for in an institution.
Newly Minted Poetry
I recently published a book of Christian poetry entitled “A Beautiful Absurdity” that is described on my website.
Alan, thanks for sharing.
There is a good man named Nic Batzig. He’s a PCA pastor. One of the good guys in the denomination. He edits at Ligonier and publishes for some of the usual suspects, such as Reformation21 and Table Talk. I suspect you’ve read something of his material and liked it. He appeared on a podcast and said a lot of uncharacteristically thin and poorly argued things about the CREC and you. Or, at least it seemed to me he lacked self-awareness and missed the mark. But maybe I’m mistaken. Could you help clear up matters?
1) Other than paedocommunion, what exceptions do you take to the Westminster Confession of Faith? Creation days? Literal Adam? Sabbath? Images of Christ? Charismatic gifts? Eternal punishment for the reprobate?
2) Does Christ Church force feed infants soggy wafers at the Lord’s Supper? Is this a common practice in the CREC? Do you practice intinction?
3) Does Christ Church have women officiating the Lord’s Supper?
4) How do you understand WLC 156 relative to the public reading of Scriptures? Anyone and everyone?
5) Does Christ Church observe the regulative principle?
6) How frequently do male ballerina’s provide liturgical dance in your services?
7) Has Christ Church provided any space grants for performances of Transluminate?
8) Did Christ Church stop ordaining deacons so it could get away with having female deacons serve its membership? Did each and every CREC presbytery turn a blind eye to this practice?
9) Is it common for women to preach or teach in your worship services? Is it Christ Church’s position that a woman can do in worship anything that a non-ordained man can do?
10) Does Christ Church or the CREC allow for the ordination of homosexual officers?
11) R.C. Sproul started a college and successful publishing ministry. Late in life, he planted a church. Some think this makes him a cult leader. Not me. Just some people. Somewhere. I don’t mean to suggest he is a cult leader, it’s just something some people say. What is your assessment of R.C. Sproul? Should we stay away from the kool-aid he put on offer?
12) Help me understand CREC polity. Like the PCA, the CREC requires its churches to subscribe to the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Definition of Chalcedon, correct? The CREC also requires its churches to adopt an historic Reformed confession, but not all its churches adopt the same Confession. Do you really think it’s possible that John Calvin, John Ussher, John Owen, and Charles Spurgeon could have co-existed in one denomination together? Wouldn’t that be as unworkable as Sinclair Ferguson, John Piper, Gerald Bray, and Michael Horton all being published in the same book together? How can you square such difficult things? Wouldn’t this be exceedingly more difficult than getting Metro NY Presbytery (PCA) and Westminster Presbytery (PCA) to agree on sexual ethics?
13) Do your paedobaptist churches (i.e. WCF) allow credobaptist elders? Some would say—not me, just some other unnamed people—that this practice is common for many churches in the PCA. I’m curious if the CREC is similar to the PCA in this regard?
14) If there is a dispute over, say, the doctrine of Scripture in a CREC presbytery, how could churches that hold to documents as varied as the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession possibly adjudicate the matter? Do you really believe there is harmony between the Reformed confessions?
15) Your liturgy includes a call to worship, psalm and hymn singing, confession of sin, a declaration of pardon, profession of faith and responsive readings, Scripture reading(s), a sermon, the Lord’s Supper, and a benediction. Why aren’t you Anglican? I don’t get it.
16) Does Christ Church outsource its pastoral counseling to non-ordained people?
17) Do you believe that Mt. 7:5 has application for pastors criticizing churches other than their own? Thank you. I’m sure your answers will clear up matters and then we can all get along
Tomas, I haven’t listened to that podcast, but I heard about it. Apparently Nic Batzig asked them to take the podcast down for two reasons. One is that he said that had not prepared properly for it, and the other was that he had privately gotten some buzz saw feedback from people in our circles. Because the feedback was private, I can’t say whether it was ungodly or not, but if it was ungodly, Nic Batzig has my blessing to tell our people to pound sand. If it was not ungodly, but simply some good folks pointing out what Nic acknowledged, which is that he didn’t know what he was talking about, then that should have been the only reason for pulling the podcast. But on your your edifying questions . . .
#1 Our exceptions to the Westminster are pretty standard. We are not historicists on the papacy, we believe that the sabbath commandment has rest at the center, etc. #2 No, we don’t practice intinction. #3 We do not have women officiating at the Supper, or serving the Supper. #4 Our Scripture reading is conducted by elders, or men training to be elders. #5 We hold to the form of the regulative principle which says that worship must be according to Scripture. #6 I would have to say that ballerinas of any sex play a minimal role in anything we do. #7 No, no space grants like that. Should we try to do better? #8 No, we ordain our deacons and all of them are men. #9 Women do not teach or preach in our worship services at all. #10 We would not ordain anyone who identified as homosexual. We could ordain someone who had successfully battled that temptation. #11. We like RC Sproul. #12 We believe that our form of Reformed ecumenicity can work because it has worked. #13 That could be possible, depending on the church’s confession, and the allowed exceptions that the odd man out took. But this is a matter of applying your defined standards, as opposed to violating your defined standards. #14 When it comes to first order doctrines, there is consistency and harmony between the Reformed confessions. #15 We are not Anglican because we are historic Presbyterians. Not Bapterians, but Presbyterians. #16 We do not outsource our pastoral counseling to non-ordained people. #17 We believe Matt. 7:5 has universal applicability.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to come clean.
Crossing the Jordan
Regarding your comment that you are ready to recommend Jordan Peterson for ordination: I don’t disagree that he has some good things to say in his message to the Christian church, but what does he think all these men are going to do when they come back? Unless they repent and believe the Gospel, there won’t be a place for them in the body of Christ.
My friend Ryan and I respond to Peterson at some length here:
Seth, thanks. But for the record, the comment about ordaining Peterson was a joke.
Just a Reminder
“The ruling elites running the current secular order are so mendacious, so corrupt, so incompetent, so duplicitous, so leprous, so diseased, so full of themselves, so hypocritical, so lecherous, and so godless, the end result of all their schemes for ushering in their endless sunshine and high speed rail is that they have determined to blow up any number of dams. They have done it in the UK, in the Netherlands, in Spain, in the United States, in Sri Lanka, and so on. What this means is that I don’t have to defend the mobs because I am not the one who caused them to form. Somebody else did that. What we are dealing with is grotesque mismanagement by the elites, and at levels such that a form of grandeur creeps into it.
Me: You don’t want to blow up that dam.
Them: But this would allow the salmon to swim upstream freely.
Me: I dare say, but you still don’t want to do it.
Them: The engineer who designed this dam went to a party in blackface once, in 1977.
Me: Still, it would be enormously destructive to blow it up.
Them: We’re gonna, because antifa rocks. Kablooie!
[Sound of a towering wall of rushing water]
Me: This is what happens . . .
Them: Why are you defending the J6 incursion?
Me: I am not defending anything. I am explaining. And the explanation includes the fact that you are the ones fomenting all of this.”
Yes, responsibility is one of the casualties of Judges 21:25.
Guymon, exactly so.
About a year ago I was appointed to the board of our small, rural township library. It was sort of a misunderstanding, but my husband thought we could let it unfold a while, just to see what came of it.
The trouble is, the more we learn about the public library scene, the stronger grows that “it’s a trap” sensation.
We’re learning about cultural engagement as fast as we can, but a shortcut on this problem would be really helpful.
Could you outline how to evaluate the strategic significance (is there any, I wonder?) of holding a seat on a library board?
Thank you for your time,
Amanda, I think this could be strategic. But I think you should begin your work by trying to get good books in, rather than trying to get evil books out. Let the bad guys be the censors and the book banners for a bit. It might be informative for them.
I may not have been reading Blog and Mablog back in 2015 or I may have just missed the 21 Theses on Assurance and Apostasy. I clicked the link in the Straight from the Pit post and read it, and found it very interesting and thought-provoking. I was wondering if you might be planning to revise it to add supporting Scripture references to the theses. I found some on my own, but some of them stumped me a little, even though I believed they contained biblical principles. FWIW, I think it would be worthwhile to do so.
Bernard, thanks for the suggestion.
An Odd One
What would you say to this question: a man goes to a church, is a member in good standing, but his wife goes to a different church, they are “agreeable” about this disagreement. Is the man eligible to be an elder in his church? or does his wife being in church elsewhere disqualify him?
Sam, I would want to know the reasons. But I would think that this should usually disqualify him.
The Target Audience
Just listening to the interview you did with Veritas. I just heard you say you write for the person who is upset with what is going on in churches and knows something is wrong, but they don’t know how to say it. I was/am that guy. You have helped me put words to dozens of “gut feelings” that I’ve had and couldn’t explain. Thank you very much.
Thomas, you are welcome. And thanks for paying attention.
The interview/discussion you had with Marvin Detweiler was enjoyable to watch.
You both came off as solid and respectable.
But, respectfully, I only give it a B- or C.
I do resonate some with what (I imagine) Mr. Detweiler’s concerns are with your public “presence” as seen in some of your biting humor and sarcastic attitudes and phrases, etc.—even as I enjoy reading/hearing you and pass on many of your articles to my godly parents.
But Marvin Detweiler never got to any concrete, *specific* examples that would *clearly* identify the cause of his concerns! The few things he brought up seemed vague and therefore lame.
l thought you made good, convincing cases for your use of satire and humor, especially as you pointed to how it appears and is used in the Bible.
But Mr. Detweiler never pressed you with any (better: several!) *specific* examples which zeroed in on any specific act, article, or even a general attitude, etc. he could “accuse” you of.
Respectfully, his examples never seemed to get beyond the vague sad disapproval expressed on his face.
Sir, I would give this interview an A+ if Mr. Detweiler would marshal together 5 or 6 specific examples that clearly paint a clear picture of his concern about your sarcastic (“abrasive” / ”belligerent” / ”unloving”, “etc.”) “style” that some sincere “conservative” Christians find off-putting so you could address each of them—their context, content, etc. specifically and clearly.
Robert, I agree. That would have been a lot more helpful.
Courtship and Church
I’m 23 years old, living in Northern Virginia. I attend the most faithful biblical church I found in the area, a PCA church plant. However, the desire for marriage and family is one that is close to my heart, and this church is almost exclusively populated by older married couples (I also have very few friends my age as a result). I’ve been attempting to find a traditional conservative woman who has a desire for family, and who is around my age, through dating apps, but at least in this area, that is not a terribly popular worldview, and I’ve had no luck with it. My job will likely keep me here for 1-2 years, so moving somewhere South or West, where more of those people might live is not an option for now.
Should I attempt to attend churches whose theology or worldview I do not agree with in order to “scope out” their single population? Or should I merely grit my teeth and continue on my current path, hoping the Lord sends someone my way? Please let me know.
Kyle, stick to your faithful church Lord’s Day morning, but make a point of attending other church events (evening services, etc.) Get around. Go to conferences.
How Long Is Too Short?
You wrote last week in reply to a letter regarding restoration to ministry after an adulterous affair: “. . . .but while I do think that 8 years is a good start, the gravity of that sin (both against you and the church) means that giving it more time would be good.”
I’m sure the answer would be on a case-by-case basis, but what is an adequate amount of time? I’m guessing the day after the supposed repentance is way too soon, and something short of “forever and ever” is too long. It would also seem something greater than 8 years is in order?
Guymon, it is not time in itself so much as it is enough time to see the quality of the fruit of repentance—say, how the kids grow up.
While marriage contracts and “Family LLCs” are certainly a thing, there is an interesting fact that I think you should be aware of, namely that in a number of states, the marriage license statute contains a list of criminal penalties for a pastor who fails to report a marriage conducted by him. So if any pastors start regularly finding themselves in situations to solemnize marriages that they will not report, they need to have excellent legal assistance and make sure that everyone is clear up front about just what the cost of pursuing a particular alternative might be.
Gregory, thanks. Good to know.
Can explain this quote to me. It was part of your response to someone on the July 19th Tuesday letters. “I would be against a father baptizing his children unless it were in the context of planting a church.”
Why? I know you place a lot of emphasis on the family as a unit and how the Father is the head of the family, so I’m confused by your response.
For context I hold baptist views. Acts 2:38 to my reading binds repentance with baptism pretty tightly, and I don’t see how babies can repent. I did read your book “To a Thousand Generations”, so I’m not completely unaware of the paedobaptist model.
Joel, this issue is not so much a paedo/credo thing, but rather the result of my conviction that the keys were assigned to the church, and not the family. So I don’t think the father as a father should be baptizing. But I do think that the father as a church planter could be someone who baptizes.
I want to reference a letter from last week where you counseled the father not to baptize his child himself. (unless it was in a house church context.) I am excitedly learning about infant baptism in context of the covenant, but for now still credo. Meanwhile my 4-year-old and 6-year-old have both independently and without prompting expressed desire to be baptized. They have been memorizing Romans chapter 6 and I believe have a proficient knowledge of their sin, their Savior and what baptism is. The dilemma is that we are suffering the fallout of Covid in an already dismal church setting in Canada. We are meeting as a ‘house church’ though have no elders or official leaders. This leadership issue prompted us to consider joining the only solid church in the city. They are staunchly old school, non reformed baptist so we hold a great many differences and have been told we can attend but could not become members. They are fighting wokeness, risked prison in defying lockdowns, and have families our age that love Jesus. Our current worship format is not ideal long term due to the lack of leadership, and any fellowship with younger families. My two questions:
Any wisdom regarding attending this new church?
With regard to baptism, I have a hard time telling my children they can’t be baptized. I have considered doing it myself with our house church on the grounds that I am a ‘leader’ in the sense that I host the meetings. Another factor is the lack of any alternative. In China or Afghanistan they don’t have the luxury of quibbling over who can do the baptizing, perhaps Canada is getting close enough to be on that list? If I do this I also fear the new church would not accept them at the communion table.
Caleb, I would say that if you decide to establish your house church as a church, then you could begin baptizing.
Strange New World
My godly conservative, intelligent, aging parents continue to be astonished with a sort of righteous bewilderment at the “unreasonableness” of each new manifestation of liberal madness/sin on the news (NEWSMAX, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, etc.) While I, on the other hand, take it all in stride with the attitude, basically, of “what did you expect,” “what’s the surprise? they are all operating logically according the their beliefs.” My parents explain/justify their attitude by contrasting the way things are now to the way things were when they were growing up when there was a general fear of God across the land—which no longer exists. I think they are using their own experience growing up in the past—instead of the Bible—as the standard by which to judge/evaluate the things they are seeing in the present.
I am constantly “frustrated”/bewildered with their attitude that it seems to me they are using their own experience to evaluate current events instead of the Bible. When I bring this up, they point me back to our nation’s founding by Christians on Biblical principles.
Although I think they are stuck in some kind of bubble in their minds that can’t see out of their own experience, yet they are truly *engaged* with the news—mainly angered, dumbfounded, ridiculing, saddened, etc., but engaged, which I see as a manifestation of true love and maturity . . . while I by comparison am not much engaged with the news, yet I imagine myself as having a greater understanding, seeing the bigger picture, yet jaded, cynical, and detached about all the liberal madness going on, thinking more on just trying to live as salt and light in the world as best I can, and how to behave and prepare for myself and family if/when the thing I fear comes to me and mine.
I have read your Dad’s article(s) on honoring your parents in which he said don’t argue with your parents, just love and serve them, etc. But I believe there is indeed a mutual enjoyment most of the time when we discuss the news/politics, etc. in light of the Bible, etc.
Do you have any comments/evaluation on this? . . . And/or where can I point my parents to get out of their bubble of their own experience in the context of our nation’s Christian founding. They enjoy reading your columns which I print off and take to them from time to time (even when they/we don’t always understand exactly what you are saying :)
Robert, because the world they grew up in appeared to them to be so stable, what is happening now really is inexplicable. It sounds like you are cultivating patience with them, which is good. It is the way. In the meantime, I would recommend Carl Trueman’s new book Strange New World. It explains, in an accessible way, how we got here.
Do the promises of God to regather Israel get fulfilled in Nehemiahs day? Nehemiah 1:8,9
Jonty, I believe that events like the Exodus, or the Return from Exile are partial fulfillments of God’s promises. Thus, they are typological with regard to the ultimate fulfillment of those promises.
Know Your Weaponry
Doug, Doug, Doug, get it right! Trump is carrying a mini gun, not an AK-47
Mark, it is so hard to keep up . . .