N.B. Before anyone writes in to correct “while away” to “wile away,” please know that while away is the older usage, and the newer and formerly incorrect wile away shouldered its way in, such that even many dictionaries treat it like a regular phrase now and not an interloper. Just another instance of the sort of behavior that makes this world such a sorry place.
Show Outline with Links
Contents
The Heidi Dust Up
In this spirit, he (James Lindsay) has been beating one particular drum for a while, and here it is. “Christian nationalism is a total and complete op.”
I think he finally clarified this recently: He sees the term “Christian Nationalism” as pretty much being invented/coopted by the Rob Reiner types as a way to justify the feds monitoring all of us.Ian
Ian, well, yes. It is a term the left decided to use and expand, and turn to their own purposes. If that is Lindsay’s take, then it should be uncontroversial in CN circles. We know the feds want to monitor us.
Or to quote the great philosopher, Inspector Jacques (Steve Martin) Clouseau, “Stop browbeating her, Can’t you see she’s sexy?”Melody
Melody, exactly. The old sexy ploy. Kind of like the way Trump chooses his lawyers.
Re, Christian nationalism—still not convinced that this is not fighting battles on ground carefully chosen by our enemies. What’s wrong with the careful, and correct, sidestep of affirming Christian federalism?Henry
Henry, I have no objection to the phrase Christian federalism, and I do agree with it. But I don’t think it would reduce the amount of explanation necessary, and would only increase it. And then, at the end of the day, you would still be dismissed as a Christian nationalist because you believe our rights come from God, not man. The fact that this ground may have been chosen by our enemies does not mean that it is not possible to fight there, and win.
Religious Liberty Down the Road
I saw some comments over the weekend about a Canon Press tweet, with a quote from you about mosques vs minarets in Christendom 2.0. I wasn’t sure of the context, but it seemed like an interesting point of contention: Is allowing mosques a case of “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, but he did not remove the high places”? Is this just tactical postmillennial, tackling those things that are feasible for Christians right now? Would mosques be allowed in a Christendom 3.0? etc. Thanks so much!Michael
Michael, it is more the tactical latter. And in Christendom 3.0, there would be no mosques, but also no need to ban them. In Christendom 2.0, we should deal with the problem of mosques by strictly restricting immigration from Muslim countries.
Define Federal Vision
I have recently been doing some reading and having conversations about federal vision, and it seems to me that there is some disagreement as to what exactly federal vision is. So, would it be possible for you, in fifty words or less, to provide a concise explanation of what it means to subscribe to federal vision? Thank you.Logan
Logan, I believe that the central core of federal vision thinking lies in the objectivity of the covenant. Our visible connections to Christ, via baptism and membership, are connections that God recognizes and deals with seriously. They are not salvific, but they are real.
A Chatty Dispensationalist
There is an older woman in the small group Bible study that I attend at my church who is a classic dispensationalist, believing that the rapture is going to happen any minute. My concern is not that she believes this, but that she takes every possible opportunity to share this with others, to the point of making others uncomfortable. The topic of the end times has not come up at all in the Bible study itself, but every time that we go around to take prayer requests at the end, she asks us to pray for Israel and gives a 5-10 min speech about how what is happening in Israel right now is clearly the fulfillment of prophecy and clearly shows that we are in the end times, with Jesus being about to return any day now. While I disagree with her eschatological view, I don’t think that is a good time to get into an argument. We usually end with a time of open prayer where anyone can jump in an pray for something or someone, and she usually jumps in to pray for Israel and say that we know that Jesus is coming back any day now. I definitely don’t want to get into a debate in the middle of the prayer, so I’m not sure how to deal with this.
My fiancée also used to drive her to the Bible study and home afterwards because her eyesight isn’t the best so she doesn’t like driving at night. My fiancée shared with me that every time she would drive this lady home, she would go on about the end times and the rapture the entire ride home. On one occasion, my fiancée shared that we want to have a large family, to which the lady replied, “oh you won’t have time to have a large family before Jesus returns,” which was hurtful to my fiancée. After my fiancée would drop her off and say “see you on Sunday” each time, she would reply with “well, only if Jesus doesn’t come back before then.” I asked my fiancée if she would like me to talk to the lady for her, and she said no. Fortunately, my fiancée had something come up where she is no longer able to drive her there each week. However, she still goes on about the end times during every prayer request.
I’m wondering how I should handle this situation or if I should do anything at all. I feel a little out of place saying anything since I am one of the youngest members of the Bible study (I’m 23 and this lady is around 80). The couple that hosts the Bible study is around 50 and the husband is an elder at the church. They obviously see the situation each week but have not done anything to address it. Would it be wise for me to say anything, either to the lady directly or to the leaders of the small group?William
William, I would ask the leaders of the small group about it. If the church is dispensational, she is simply guilty of bad manners. If the church is not, then she is guilty of bad manners and trying to steer the church doctrinally. And if I were the small group leader, I would tell her that she can certainly pray for Israel, but that she needs to keep it short.
Time to Open Up?
Forgive me if this is too personal a question for such a forum, but as someone who has consumed a good deal of your content, I can’t recall you ever speaking on specific sins you have struggled with personally. The reason I ask is because I look up to as my elder brother in Christ, yet sometimes I’m somewhat disheartened when comparing myself to you. Now I fully realize that you’re just as much a sinner as me, and I know that you would be the first to admit that apart from Christ you are utterly and completely hopeless, but I’ve still found myself a couple times, in the aftermath of doing the same dumb thing for the millionth time, saying, “Man, it just seems like Doug’s kind of got it all together.” Again, I know that’s not really fair to you as I’m just a reader from afar, but sometimes it helps to hear that those you look up to are just as dumb-headed as you sometimes.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s two sides to the consequences of such admissions of sin from someone like yourself. One side being that it may inadvertently comfort the sin: “Doug’s looked at porn before. I know it’s wrong, but he’s managed to get along just fine, so it won’t hurt to look once more.” But the other side being that it can offer tremendous comfort to the sinner: “Doug’s just as messed up as me. If he can be forgiven and come out the other side in pursuit of righteousness, so can I.” In fact, one of the most heartwarming stories in Scripture to me is one of the most heartbreaking moments: when Simon Peter denies his Lord, not once, not twice, but three times. “The great Apostle Peter is not much different than me!” I think, “If Jesus can love Peter after that, he can love me after this.”
If you think it fruitful, would you be willing to share any specific sin struggles of your own? An old sin of your past or something you currently struggle with?Caleb
Caleb, thanks for the honest question, taken by me as such. So here would be my three-part reply. First, as you say, it is certainly true that what Scripture teaches about the sinfulness of all is true about the sinfulness of one, that one being me. If God were to mark iniquities, I would not be among those still standing. But secondly, I don’t subscribe to the idea that teachers should be “transparent” as a way of encouraging the saints. While it could have that effect here and there, I believe the overall impact would be negative. “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5). Not preaching yourself would also include a refusal to narrate a bunch of stories that put yourself in a positive light. I really try to avoid that kind of thing. And then last, there is no way to talk about yourself in this way in our current climate without giving the enemy a big opportunity to weaponize it, which he loves to do. He is the accuser of the brethren, day and night, and so we shouldn’t be giving him any more ammo. So as I have said on a few occasions, if my enemies knew just a fraction about what God knows about me, it would be all over.
Does Christ Church Have a Foreign Policy?
I would like to know from either Pastor Wilson, or some authoritative person or body of Christ Church, what position, generally or specifically, the church takes with respect to the conflict in Gaza. Does Christ Church call for a cease fire? Does Christ Church stand behind whatever the Israeli government decides to do there, or are there stated limitations? Are there lines beyond which the Israelis must not go?
I understand that Christ Church is very supportive of the state of Israel. But are there any limitations in that support? Do the obviously genocidal intentions of Israel give Christ Church members, generally speaking, any pause?
Thank you and regards,Tim
Tim, Christ Church has no stated policy on the conflict in Gaza, and we have not called for a cease fire. At the same time, it would not be the case that we would support “whatever the Israeli government decides to do there.” We do subscribe to the classical Christian formulation of just war theory, and so if Israel were to be convicted of genocide, we would condemn it as such. But the people bringing the charges of genocide must not themselves be genocidal.
Campus Discouragement
I lead a campus ministry at a secular college, and I’m stumped. I started out last semester by trying to get the students acquainted with the story of the Bible, and have now been focused on going chunk by chunk through Ephesians, asking four questions, “Who is God, What has He done, Who am I in light of that, and What am I to do?” I lay out a quick overview of the context then I really put the text in their lap to unpack, helping where I can and counseling if there’s errors. But, that would be all well and good if they actually engaged. Most nights I leave our Bible study completely dejected because I could’ve talked to a brick wall and at least experienced an echo. It just seems like they don’t care, and I’ve diluted the content so much to account for their lack of understanding, trying to meet them where they’re at, and it’s just not getting there. Do you have any advice? Any resources? Anybody who can help me here?Eric
Eric, there are a lot of variables here. But even though you don’t think it is profitable, they are still coming, presumably for a reason. What I would do it continue on with the teaching you are providing, but I would also start singling out the guys, by ones and twos, grabbing a coffee or a beer with them, and getting into their spiritual business. I think close discipleship would be where I would begin.
A Four-Year-Old Handfull
Thank you for your ministry, it has been of great value to us. We have learnt much from you and your family about parenting, so I thought I would bring a question to you.
My eldest daughter who is four-years-old will not listen to my wife, most commands are met with tantrums and tears. She has been disciplined for her disobedience and fussing consistently for years and yet it’s still happening. We try and maintain an environment of fellowship, dealing with sin quickly, etc. and we go out of our way to show abundant affection to her, but her relationship with her mother still results in melt-downs.
She is otherwise an obedient young girl and lovely in many ways; until she isn’t and the whole world seems to fall apart for her. I don’t have nearly as much disobedience from her as my wife does, but I know that this issue in their relationship is my issue to deal with.
I appreciate that you don’t know us and so can’t really answer in specifics at such a great distance, but we are both first generation at taking parenting and discipline seriously, and are in a church that doesn’t really talk about or display godly parenting in any particularly healthy way, so it’s hard to know what we might be doing wrong without going to those who think a spank is borderline abusive.
Based on what I have written, is there anything in particular you would recommend? Thanks,David
David, I would do something like this. Pick a long weekend where you have a few consecutive days when you will be around. But don’t fill it up with a bunch of activities, just a normal sort of routine for your wife and daughter, but you are on the premises. Every time a clash occurs, have your wife call you immediately, and you step in with discipline, backing your wife up. Adjust as you go.
The Introvert Dilemma
I think that one of the marks of a Christian is a love for God’s people and a desire to be with them. I’m an introvert and have never enjoyed large gatherings of people, but the older I get the less I like these settings. I find myself not really wanting to go in crowded public spaces because of the cacophony of sounds and general sensory overload. Avoiding crowds doesn’t necessarily pose a problem in my mind until it comes to the church body. Worship is non-negotiable, I’m there every Sunday and I’ll generally chat with a few folks and then go home. I don’t necessarily love it, but I’m being obedient. I do have some long-standing relationships with people in my church, and spend some amounts of time with them throughout a given year. I tithe faithfully, serve in ways that are largely unseen to most members, and take opportunities to meet needs of the body (meals, cards, financial needs, etc), but I really struggle with the in-person fellowship type events. I just don’t want to go and interact. It is uncomfortable to me. I like being around a few people, but not a bunch of people, and I don’t like getting asked a bunch of questions. Can you help me think this through? Is this reasonable? What is the minimum requirement for this kind of thing, below which one should question their salvation? Is saying that one is an introvert really just a cover up for some kind of sinfulness like pride or self-centeredness or something? Is a change needed?Anon
Anon, another temptation frequently faced by introverts is that they are also introspective, condemning themselves unnecessarily. From what you have described, I don’t see a problem. I think you should continue to strive to be around the saints more than you feel like, and less than your extrovert cousin feels like.
No Set Schedule
I’m so thankful for your years of faithful ministry. To cut to the point: my wife read Praise Her in the Gates and enjoyed it greatly, but a major challenge for her was wanting/needing to get a better sense of Nancy’s daily schedule. Simply put: how did Nancy do it all? I looked through some other things Nancy has written but couldn’t find anything. We would greatly appreciate more details on the logistics/timing/schedule of house-keeping, wifing, and mothering.
Thank you for your time,Jon
Jon, this is difficult to answer. Our routine now is very different from when the kids were little, and also very different from when they were in high school. We have more options now, and so her schedule will vary greatly. One day she may be making a meal for someone in the church, another day helping watch one of the grandkids, and another time writing a podcast. And when they were all in school, Nancy was teaching English at Logos, and juggling other responsibilities.
Glory of Limited Government
I fundamentally agree with your essay but have some clarifying and related questions.
1) You said “Some Christians are fond of saying that Christianity has nothing to say about this form of government or that one.” And then you specify that “unlimited human government” is a sub-Christian form of government. Would you agree then that there are many legitimate forms of government, as long as they are limited in some way? I’m thinking particularly of forms like constitutional monarchy, etc. The primary method of rule (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) isn’t as important as the authority checks which govern those who are ruling. In other words, we can organize the furniture in the house many different ways. Some ways are better (more wise) than others , but ultimately what matters is the hospitality of the people who own the house.
2) Related to this, would you also say that different cultures and peoples are better suited for different forms of government? I believe Aristotle made the point that farmers work better in a democracy because they tend to mind their own business and don’t clog up the political machinery. If this is true, then our outlook on other world governments should be less concerned with organization and more concerned with whether they were just according to God’s word. Wisdom may dictate the US remain a constitutional republic because that’s what our tradition is. But there is no reason another nation could not utilize a more archaic form of government, as long as God’s law was ultimate.
Are you familiar with Virtuous Liberty (edited by Sandlin)? I have yet to finish all the essays, but it seems this crowd thinks classical liberalism is really the optimal form of government, in particular, Christian government. I think this is also why they reject the CN crowd: any deviance from the purity of constitutionalism/liberalism would be a failure of Christian political philosophy. CN seems more concerned, generally speaking, with justice, no matter how it gets achieved.
Thanks for all you do,Jackson
Jackson, I agree with your central point. The essential thing for a Christian form of government is that it has built-in restrictions that prevent it from wanting to rival God. I could be happy with a constitutional monarchy, for example, even while preferring a republic. I have not read Virtuous Liberty, but the point just made would apply. I also am an advocate of classical liberalism, but believe that Enlightenment thinking cannot sustain it while Christian thinking can. In other words, classical liberalism took shape under the aegis of a formal commitment to Christ. In the heyday of free markets in the United States, we were far more Christian than now. So yes, to Christian classical liberalism.
A Church History Question
I am a Protestant who has recently been studying church history. The more I read, the more I have questions regarding Eastern Orthodoxy Christianity. As you must be aware of, this faith claims to be the original church and is proud of their Apostolic succession. Other Christian denominations are considered schisms. How does one have confidence that the Reformation was not rebellious, a schism that Paul warned the early church about? Thanks!Katie
Katie, I actually believe that the Reformation was a schism. The question would have to do with the identity of the schismatic. Was it the Reformers, or was it the papal party? And the claim that “we are the one true church, all others are frauds” is the first indication of a schismatic spirit.
I think you get a fair number of these types of questions, but I’d like your opinion if possible. My family recently moved to another part of our large city, and we are looking to change churches to be able to be more locally involved. We’ve visited a close by church with friends that we all liked, and which seems to be solid theologically, however it is clearly not accepting of paedobaptism. In fact, the statement of faith on the church’s website states “Baptism is the willful act of a believer to be immersed in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . . . As the first ordinance, baptism is a prerequisite for church membership and the communion table.” My wife and I would qualify as we were baptized at a Baptist Church, but our kids (ages 9 & 11) were baptized as infants. I am not comfortable withholding the Lord’s Supper from them per this statement, nor do I want to willfully disobey this church’s leadership, or ask my kids to be re-baptized per this interpretation which I consider pretty questionable (were all the disciples baptized at the Last Supper?). Withholding communion seems to go beyond what is usually stated/implied in most Baptist circles.
I guess my question is, should we keep looking here? What about the more benign (and common) version of this which does not address communion but would withhold membership to my kids . . . Understanding that kids would not normally be voting members anyway. Basically, how big of a deal are these kind of things?
A secondary but related concern (common to many Baptist-ish churches really) is a sense I get of casualness about the Lord’s Supper. Implied by rushing through it, using pre-made “lunchables” instead of actual bread and poured wine/juice, or just not practicing it regularly. This casualness concerns me generally given that the Supper was the ordinance actually directly instituted by Jesus.
Thank you!John
John, yes. I would keep looking. Given your convictions, any attempt to join this church would simply be disruptive to everyone.
American Civil War as Revolution
Thanks, Doug. This was a true tour-de-force; Von Gentz would be proud. What’s your best book recommendation putting forth the view of the Civil War that you describe here? I’ve gotten pieces of it this view over the years but want to dig deeper.Samuel
Samuel, I would start with The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Severe Family Conflict
Your answer to the Severe Family Conflict letter dredged up my own family situation. I grew up in an abusive home; I remember as a 8-year old or thereabouts my mother body slamming me against the floor and pinning me down as she was on top of me screaming “I hate you!”, all because I didn’t want to eat cold tomato soup. Yeah, I should have eaten what was put in front of me, but I guess that’s been overshadowed by my mother’s treatment of me. She also told me when I was an adolescent or young teenager that she wished I had been born a girl so she could have named me “Gretchen.” I can promise no budding young man wants to hear that. I also had a stepfather who was a molester, and that’s all I’ll say about that.
None of that means I’m not a sinner and haven’t done my share of bad things in life. I’m a former adulterer, twice divorced, and before coming to Christ years ago was generally about as ratty as a rat can be. But hey, at least I didn’t do drugs, right?
Anyway, long story short, basically I’ve been disowned and ostracized by my own family. They claim to be Christians, but they’ve accused me of things I did not do, and made it clear they didn’t want me around. I now live a scant 30 minutes from them hoping against hope that maybe one day I’ll have a family again, but there has been zero contact for a long time now.
All I wanted was to come home and be part of my own family, but I strongly feel that in order for that to happen, these things must be addressed and put to bed. Problem is, they refuse to acknowledge any of these things.
I guess that qualifies under “Severe Family Conflict”? My question is, since you mentioned something about a functional, working relationship, how is a functional, working relationship even possible in such a situation when there are severely significant issues outstanding that must be addressed, but one party refuses to even acknowledge those issues?NF
NF, very sorry. It all sounds terrible and difficult. The apostle Paul says that we are to be at peace with all men, as far as it is possible with us (Rom. 12:18). In this broken world, it is not always possible. The only advice I can give here is to get a copy of my father’s book on bitterness, read through it, and start applying it to yourself first.
No, It Didn’t Take Long at All
The New Scientist has a headline “Is it time for a more subtle view on the ultimate taboo: cannibalism?” it goes on to say “Ethically, cannibalism poses fewer issues than you might imagine . . . Our aversion has been explained in various ways. Perhaps it is down to the fact that, in Western religious traditions, bodies are seen as the seat of the soul and have a whiff of the sacred.” And then the money line.. “Or maybe it is culturally ingrained, with roots in early colonialism . . .” wait for it . . .”when racist stereotypes of the cannibal were concocted to justify subjugation.” Boy! that didn’t take long, weren’t we just mulling over the idea of eating bugs?Blair
Blair, they just can’t help themselves, can they? Revulsion over cannibalism is rooted in racist stereotypes. Gee, that would be bad.
Harmonizing a Few Things
I have a question about a couple of your letter responses that I find connected and confusing. Let me quote: About the repentant adulterer, you write “Any prospective spouse would need to know the whole story, for example.”
And then about being above reproach, you write “There are certain things everyone sees as not above reproach . . .”
And finally regarding severe family conflict, you write “I don’t think you need an apology in order to have a functioning relationship.”
Ok, so my question revolves around forgiveness and reconciliation. My experience has been, both personally and witnessing other situations, that professing Christians rarely, if ever, forgive. Particularly for “big” sins. Those that everyone agree are not above reproach. While I understand that there are consequences for sin, and that being subject to lack of forgiveness might be one of those consequences, I still have a hard time reconciling that with how God forgives us. IOW, I think forgiveness *actually means something and has practical, positive ramifications for relationships* rather than just some abstract concept that we say has taken place but still somehow justifies sinful entitlement of revenge. And what I have seen leads me to the axiomatic statement, “There may be forgiveness with God, but there is none with man.”
I feel like either I’m missing something, or I’m accurate in my perception and things are far worse than what we want to accept. What is wrong with me that has led me to this inescapable conclusion.Confused
Confused, forgiveness is all about restoration of relationship. And when there is no forgiveness, then the relationship will either be non-existent or superficial. One of those quotes had to do with a situation where the other person refused to seek forgiveness, meaning that the relationship if it continued to function, would be a surface functioning. On the future spouse front, that was more about entering into relationship as opposed to restoring a relationship. So when forgiveness is sought and extended, it really does restore things.
Face Masks and Tyranny
I’m in general agreement with your comments regarding face masks and resisting tyranny. However, I had someone bring up a good point from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount recently that I’m curious to hear how you would respond.
In Matthew 5:41 Jesus says “and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” Presuming that this is a situation where a Roman soldier is commanding one of Jesus’s followers to carry his stuff for a mile (provision under Roman law) and that the instruction here is to not only comply with the request, but to go beyond it even, then how are we to think of this in relation to the principle regarding face masks. In other words, it seems that Jesus is saying “even if an official asks you to do something that seems tyrannical in nature, happily comply.” How would you think through this and respond?
Thanks!John
John, a person who carried the pack two miles was actually stepping into the situation in such a way as put him in control of the situation. It gave him the moral high ground. But if a Roman soldier commanded you to lick his boot, I don’t think licking the other boot too would have the same effect. That’s one thing—not all tyrannical commands are the same. The second thing is that the Romans were in complete control of Judea, while the masking orders were a naked attempt to gain control that was not theirs before.
Paedobaptism
Recently I have been studying Reformed Paedobaptism and your book “To a Thousand Generations” provided great clarity on the key arguments for infant baptism and the actual conflict between credo and paedobaptism. You had a great point where you noted that most Baptist arguments against the Reformed variety of infant baptism don’t hold much water, since all they do is point to all the passages where baptism is mentioned, emphasize the connection to regeneration, and conclude it is only for believers. But, like you wrote, this fails to interact with the covenantal arguments made by Reformed paedobaptism.
Most Reformed arguments for infant baptism rely on the idea that baptism is a continuation of infant circumcision. Reformed Baptists, when arguing correctly, emphasize discontinuity between the two covenants. One of the most compelling arguments from the Baptist position I’ve come across is by Dr. Gavin Ortlund: .
He argues: “This raises the question: if the basis for infant baptism is infant circumcision, and infant circumcision was practiced intergenerationally, should not infant baptism be practiced intergenerationally as well?”
I was wondering if you’ve interacted with the “Why not grandchildren” argument against Paedobaptism, and if you have a response.Cooper
Cooper, I have not interacted with this argument before. But I know that Calvin did. In his letters, he argues that a child can be baptized if any of his ancestors were. Under such circumstances, there would of course need to be someone who could vouch for the “nurture and admonition” part of the vows. So there are at some who would swallow the reductio.
Another Country Heard From
You’re a [effing] joke. I have watched you and your ilk try to perpetrate the hostile takeover of my hometown for far too long. It is well known that you condone and encourage the mistreatment and rape of females in your congregation by the members of your cult. I have watched the hate spill out of your face, welcomed by the ears of your brainwashed and otherwise mindless sycophantic followers for years and as a fellow human being I am here to say that you, like all others (at least as your bible claims), will reap what you sew [sic]. Whether it happens in this life or the next, you will receive what you are due. I weep for the people that have been blinded by your secularist need to be the center of attention and your glaringly obvious vanity. You have broken one of your own God’s commandments: Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain (if you think that means not saying things like “God Damnit,” you are even more ignorant and misguided that I imagine). You will fail, Doug. Your stated goal of a Spiritual Takeover of Moscow, Idaho will not gain anymore traction. Your intolerance will not be tolerated by those in this community who possess a true moral compass and conscience; one that stems from humanity, not whatever nonsense interpretation of Christianity that led you down the road you’re on. Which, I’m sure you know, has only one destination: despair. I truly hope, for your sake, you EXAMINE yourself as we all have been doing for decades, you may at not like the truth of who you, but the truth will set you free.
His judgement cometh, and that right soon.jdr
jdr, serious question. Is this a sampling of the kind of tolerance we can look forward to if you prevail?
PCA Questions
I hope this little note finds you well! I hope everything in Moscow is chugging along at a good pace and I pray that it will continue to do so. My question for you is fairly simple, so I will cut to the chase: what sort of diagnostic questions would you ask of a PCA church to see if they are the right kind of PCA church? Our city has PCA churches coming out of her ears, but it’s pretty clear that these churches are a mixed bag at best. I’m pursuing ordination in the CREC and have started to build relationships with the churches that are close(r) to me, but both churches are too far away for me to attend at the moment. Thus, I’m looking around for a short-term solution and I figure that at least one of the many PCA churches around here is pretty solid. So what are some good things to ask pastors to gauge where they are at (particularly in terms of gender roles and their doctrine of the family)? Some friends of mine have said it is ill-advised to drop your name, so I’m not sure what to make of that.
I look forward to your response.
God bless,Caedmon
Caedmon, your friends who advised you on not using my name at least had the right idea. Who they admire and who they shun will tell you everything you need to know. I think the best thing you could do is ask to see their book table.
The Chosen
A friend of mine, a PCA Elder, recently invited me to attend a showing of the next episode of The Chosen with him. He went on talking about the previous episodes and how wonderful they were and how they really brought Scripture alive. I have been generally skeptical (and cautious) about this series. I am being overly cautious?David
David, I don’t think you are being overly cautious. I would be cautious the same way.
Creeping Feminism
I recently became the senior pastor for a congregation in upstate NY. I am a part of a denomination (the Christian & Missionary Alliance) that recently made the decision to allow churches to ordain women as pastors (Local C&MA churches can choose not to do this). The elders of my local church would consider themselves complementarian, and do not agree with the C&MA’s decision. However, living in a more liberal state, and being part of a denomination that is more egalitarian, the congregation is not as unified on the question of the biblical roles of men and women as I would hope. As I have been questioning the usefulness of the term “complementarian” in favor of the term “patriarchy” (thank you Canon Plus), how do the elders and I shepherd an upstate NY congregation to become more patriarchal?
Thank you for considering my question.Samuel
Samuel, I think your only hope is to begin teaching on it. Stock your book table with good books on it. Preach through the pastorals.
Former Fan
I am a fan of your barbed nature and appreciate you poking the bee’s nest that is our sick society. However, when it comes to Israel, Russia, and the lies we are fed about them, I feel you are losing touch and have become yet another normie spewing the propaganda line.
Your article, titled “Tucker, Vladimir, and Cultural Vindication”, you make many logical fallacies. Here are a few of them:
With regards to Tucker Carlson, you say “I found that whole thing embarrassingly naive,” yet you don’t explicitly state what was naive about it. Can you tell us?
You imply that he had handlers around him and was only shown Potemkin villages (i.e. Soviet-stocked supermarkets). How do you know?
You imply that Navalny was murdered. How do you know? What could that possibly gain Putin?
You state that Carlson was “embarrassingly wrong about Russia”. In what way? Can Carlson not think for himself?
You do the same thing with Israel. You parrot the propaganda lines that Israel is some beacon of democracy, when in fact it is the head of the snake that rules this world. Since you are a smart guy, I assume you know this, and I question whether you are afraid to state the truth on Russia and Israel, or if you are a shill. Instead of hiding behind your long-winded prose, why don’t you actually come out and say the truth? Unless you are just yet another boomer who refuses to let go of Hitler-bad, Putin-bad and the rest of the invented history that the normies all believe.
I do believe you are sincere about your belief in Jesus Christ. However, you are losing this reader due to your unwillingness to name the enemy. I’m sure you’ll toss this aside, or even post it, and disregard what I’ve said by calling me one of the propaganda terms invented for our destruction, like anti-Semite or Nazi. We are living in a time where it is easier and easier to see who is superficially on the side of good, and who is truly on the side of good and willing to state the truth. The more I read from you regarding current events, the more I see that you are the former. The latter get cancelled, but at least they have balls.
Regards,Former fan
Former fan, three things. First, if being a normie is not a genuine threat to the globohomo elites, then why are they waging such a ferocious war against normies? Second, I know that Navalny was murdered the same way I know that Epstein was. And last, you really should read American Milk and Honey. Whatever else it is, it is not standard fare. I think you would be surprised.
You don’t have to take Tucker’s word for anything. There’s ample evidence of what life’s like in Russia. Here’s a walk through Gorky Park.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bBf8nbXmUPs&pp=ygUPR29ya3kgcGFyayB3YWxr
I’m not sure why Doug Wilson keeps siding with the Deep State against these people.
Doug has a real Fed problem. He has had multiple run-ins with the FBI and is smart enough to know they’re watching him (or at least to see it as a reasonable assumption based on how they’re known to operate) while holding the proverbial sword over his head. This implicit threat is not only over him, but his family, his children and grandchildren. He’s afraid because, frankly, he’s just defeated. Like all of us. He’s not going to fight, because the fight is over and was lost. Not trying to be black-pilling but Occam’s Razor seems to apply. You don’t… Read more »
Eh, what’s the threat? That they’d have to get real jobs?
The “Fed” issue is an interesting one. Are there Feds infiltrated into any dissident group? Most likely. But accusing anyone who shows up at a demonstration or who even criticizing the system louder than you of being a fed is pretty self-defeating. It’s very convenient if you are a milk-toast critic of the regime trying to gate-keep anyone willing to tell more of the truth and take more risks than yourself.
“You are doing and saying things that would upset the feds therefore you must be a fed.”
It’s clear they’re trying to find “white extremists” to string up. That’s their explicitly stated number one terrorist threat. Doug knows this and he knows he’s a good candidate for that role.
And yes, even if the threat is merely job loss, who wants to see that happen to their children or grandchildren?
So he’s trying to prove he’s more of an asset than a liability for the regime? I suspect you’re right but it’s not morally justifiable based on some vague perceived threat from the government.
At Charlottesville protesters (who had a permit to demonstrate in defense of a Robert E Lee statue ) were trapped between Antifa and Terry McAuliffe’s police and attacked and were later subject to civil and criminal law-fare. Doug Wilson called them “white supremacists marching to hell.”
Forgive me if I don’t have much sympathy that he might lose his grifting operation.
He just doesn’t want to fight them. As do none of us, at least not in meaningful ways, because we know they can and will destroy us. This is why I don’t use my real name on here; I don’t want my views to be publicly known, because my life would be destroyed. We’ve lost, we’re under occupation, and we’re all scared. Including Doug. My problem is with people who pretend this is not the case, or who fight only on issues they’re comfortable with (as if we get to pick our battles or our enemies). This is my criticism… Read more »
Self-immolation is now apparently an option is you really buy into the CRT garbage about “whiteness” and “colonization.”
Christian Nationalists are just biding our time, and our demeanor for now is just an illusion. It can’t be that we like raising children, singing, and laughing around a fire with good whisk(e)y. That’s just a disguise until we get 51% of the vote, and then it’s time to get out the jackboots and clubs.
I don’t know how good of an idea it is for CN’s to portray themselves, at least to their enemies, as carefree merrymakers who just want to enjoy life and be left alone. Doesn’t seem very threatening. The enemy should actually be afraid of the jackboots and clubs. That’s just standard politics, or at least it is for the left, who have basically won in every way conceivable.
Russia is one of the few places and contexts on the planet where the fight isn’t lost yet.
Are you troubled by Putin’s”anti-missionary” legislation that bans meeting in private residences for the purpose of prayer, Bible study, and the dissemination of religious literature? This has come down hard on evangelical Christians who are also prohibited, by law, from sharing their faith online, in public, or in fact anywhere except in a building the state recognizes as a church. There have been numerous prosecutions of evangelicals including one for including a religious symbol in a social media post and another for discussing Baptist beliefs at a bus stop. Clean streets, affordable groceries, and policies aimed at urgeing gays to… Read more »
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.”
Current Western missionaries would be poison to Russian society. Russia would be wise to ban them all together.
For the record, I don’t want Globohomo to conquer China, Iran or North Korea either.
Are you troubled by Zelensky’s crackdown on Orthodox Christians and putting American citizen Gonzalo Lira in prison where he was tortured to death (that’s on Biden, too)? Or Biden’s FBI arresting a Blaze journalist today and withholding the charges? Or leftist celebrities saying things like this with maybe 40% of the U.S. agreeing? “ “Let’s look at a scenario where the Supreme Court says he is immune from everything. You know what Joe Biden could do since he is presently president? He could throw every Republican in jail.” TheBlaze on X: “Whoopi Goldberg: “Let’s look at a scenario where the… Read more »
Cool story, bro. Tell me more 🎙️
@John, re: Tyranny There is another distinction to be made between the Romans and our own governmental tyranny. Caesar was supreme–likened to a god–and whatever he said did, in fact, carry the weight of law. A Roman soldier, then, could say “Carry my pack,” and the implicit voice behind him was that of Caesar. What was a Judean to do? But in America, we are not governed by a person; we are governed by a document, and that document does not change its mind day by day. In fact, that document also governs the governor, the senator, and the president.… Read more »
This exactly. The key distinction is that we are a nation of laws, not of men. Civil resistance to abused authority is *honoring* our government. Obeying everything ordered by any civil servant, politician, or other *representative* of the government without consideration of the true authority of our Constitution is *defying* our actual government and completely disregarding Jesus instructions and Romans 13.
And what few places that Jesus and the apostles did have laws and not men with authority, they appealed to them in resistance to the men abusing them.
There may be disagreement about how far obedience to the government is to go, but the idea of liberty, as it is generally understood in America, had little basis in the Bible, let alone the New Testament. The positive passages about freedom in the New Testament, as I read them, have nothing to do with political freedom. In fact, the foundation of freedom on which the American republic is built came from Locke, who, according to Wikipedia, was a Socinian, which means he did not believe Jesus was pre-existent (let alone divine), and Voltaire and Rousseau, who were not only… Read more »
Greetings James, you’ve referenced a lot of history…I’m struggling to see how you suggest I should apply it to my approach to life in the public square, including my interaction with government and politics. Even if I grant that Locke’s theology was unorthodox, referencing the Bible rationally as it relates to politics and freedom still gets us to a better place than we are today with secular humanism. I’ve not read a biography of Jefferson, so I don’t know which Bible verses he didn’t like. But I have read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I can use… Read more »
James, I don’t have time to address everything you say here, but I will take a moment to highlight that although you clicked “Reply” on my comment, none of this appears to be related to what I said. Regardless of what our Founders thought about God, Scripture, and governance–all of which can be found in the things they wrote–and regardless of what you or I think they thought–which may or may not be stated free of bias on Wikipedia–there remains in plain English a set of documents that occupies the position of “King.” Lex Rex. It was and still is… Read more »
Mr. Martin, I appreciate that you asked me questions. I have read the Jefferson Bible, and he did leave out all miracles, including the resurrection, so, while he could have believed near the end (and I would be glad if he did) we have to assume he was not a believer at the time of the Declaration. As for freedom, by its definition, it means doing what you want to. I think when Jesus talked about freedom, he meant freedom from the ceremonial laws, he never supported insurrections (in fact, he was the paragon of a good king murdered at… Read more »
Cooper – I found this argument using OT baptism examples to guide baptismal practice to be interesting
https://theopolisinstitute.com/christians-should-baptize-their-children-but-not-because-of-circumcision/
Is anyone seriously contemplating eating people?? Beyond the odd Hollywood type, I mean.
Unfortunately, yes. Various forums and individuals have put forth the idea in recent years.
I’ve only heard Armie Hammer — the (very) odd Hollywood type I hinted at above. His ancestor whose name he bears founded United World Colleges, and he’s talking about eating humans….. So there are more?
Unfortunately, yes. Fact checkers are unsure or say that Professor Mangus Soderlund didn’t really propose eating humans at the 2019 Stockholm Gastro Summit. He was stating that the current norm of not eating humans was a conservative value and that we should consider where the line should really be drawn for sustainability. At the summit 8% of the audience were in favor of cannibalism and he was willing to at least try a bite or two. He favored introducing humans for dinner in a phased manner so that we would all get used to it, that is to say tricked… Read more »
Dystopian science fic… Uh oh.
So who exactly are we supposed to eat?
Well I’m gristly and unpalatable, and more so the older I become, just so everybody knows.
I’m no spring chicken. In fact, I’m nothing like chicken. I want to make that unambiguously clear.
I have no idea. In the late 70s and early 80s, it was whoever happened to be nearby. Perhaps a steady food source is why the powers that be want so many illegals here. ;)
Or…shop locally from farmers’ markets and neighbors. Or, just grow your own food. There’s nothing wrong (and probably everything right) with bypassing the whole broken monolithic system. You don’t like what the government, the think tanks, or the agricultural industrial complex says we should eat or not eat? Thumb your nose and go have a rich, fatty feast.
It’s tastes better, anyway.
Andrew, I am simply pointing out the problems that are working toward us. In today’s crazy political world, those who are going to do outrageous things signal us before it shows up in real life. I do think we are still a bit away from Soylent Green implementation though. There is a present threat in our agriculture with various producers wanting to use mRNA vaccines on their market animals and market vegetables. That isn’t tin foil hat thinking but is in progress right now. The fact checkers will tell us that such a thought is incorrect, there is nothing to… Read more »
Caleb – I wonder if it might help if you stopped thinking of yourself as a sinner. If you are a born again believer then you are not, on the contrary you are a saint. Since I doubt you are yet sinlessly perfect consider yourself to be a ‘saint but not yet made perfect’. This was how Paul saw the non perfect church at Corinth, yet still addressed them as saints. Former fan – I would suggest you do the opposite and cease considering yourself a saint – assuming you do, and reckon yourself still a sinner. Unless you are… Read more »
I think he was trying to oppose the idea that Hitler was worse than Weimar. Both were bad, I think, and in very different ways, if I had to choose between an extremist reactionary and people who were wicked in ways which I cannot understand, I might, if pressed, choose the former. It is possible that a self-righteous Jew who promotes pornography, degeneracy, and blasphemy and calls it good may be closer to Hell than an unstable dictator who does evil things in the hope that good may result. But, as C. S. Lewis would say, it is best to… Read more »
(deleted)
Samuel of the C&MA,
I too was once in that denomination. I would highly recommend hightailing it out of there. I know your situation is difficult, but wouldn’t it be better to be in a denomination who take the Bible as God’s infallible Word and don’t ordain women?
Hi, this is Eric, I asked the question regarding campus ministry. If there’s anyone with further advice or resources I welcome it. But prayer I welcome all the more. Please pray for wisdom and guidance here.
To William regarding The Chatty Dispensationalist: I know this situation well, as I was involved in a small group that was ultimately ruined by dispensational chatter and by people refusing to leave this stuff alone. In the end it divides people beyond the point of reconciliation. In my experience, when people latch onto last days fanaticism, it becomes the lens in which they view everything else. A regular conversation with such a person becomes impossible. If you sat and talked to this woman at length, I believe in the end you would discover that you have two very different versions… Read more »
… predicting the end of the world has always been a lucrative endeavor, so it won’t be going away any time soon.
Well you never know, it might …
On Baptism:
You’re right that paedobaptists see parallels between baptism and circumcision. I think they often overstate the parallels, but it’s not necessary to do so to be a paedobaptist.
I came to paedobaptism by embracing a more limited view of those parallels. At a minimum, circumcision and baptism both function as the entry ritual into the people of God. The Israelites, who were the main hearers of the gospel at first, would have obviously expected their children to receive the rite, and they were never told otherwise.