Year End Letters, As Sometimes Happens

What is the difference between tattle-tailing and tale-bearing? Any practical pointers on how to teach kids the difference?
Thanks.

Josh

RE: “Aimed at Tucker”
It’s increasingly clear to me that the enemy has laid a trap on both sides of the road, as he generally does. On one side is descent into conspiracy theory and antisemitism, and on the other is struggle sessions and denouncements. Both are clearly mistakes. Candace has gone off the deep end, but it’s not at all clear that we should spend oxygen denouncing her—probably just ignore her? It’s definitely less clear to me that we must denounce Tucker for not denouncing Candace, and once we get to the point of needing to denounce Megyn Kelly for not denouncing Tucker for not denouncing Candace, well, things have just gotten ridiculous. “It’s not enough to not be antisemitic, one must be actively anti antisemitic.”—Ta Nehisi Coates, or perhaps Ben Shapiro.
On a similar note, dismissing conspiracy theories seems exceedingly dangerous when the past few years the only things that have proven to be true were all conspiracy theories . . . but we also need to remember that a great many conspiracy theories are utterly ridiculous and simply untrue. Healthy skepticism and critical thinking are warranted.
I pray for the conservative movement right now, and especially for Christians with a platform. Unfortunately, many people I admire are only seeing one ditch or the other.

Ian

I have for a long time attended a great PCA church. I was an elder at one point and a youth pastor. In the last year we decided to move on for various reasons, one being that we moved and the distance was just to much. Since March 2025 we have visited and attended 2 churches, and none were up our alley. Then, in November 2025 we visited a CREC church. I was reluctant to do so originally because I thought it would present a distance issue again, but it turns out it was not as far as I thought. Well, without saying too much I love this church and I feel strongly that the Lord is calling my family there. However, my wife and children do not like it; they are having a hard time adjusting to the liturgy. My wife’s parents attend a church nearby that is a non-denominational mega church. Although I’m sure that the church is filled with good Christians that love God, I am almost certain that I don’t align with them theologically (particularly in the area of eschatology , communion, and baptism). Therefore I have made a clear statement to our family that that is not the church for us. However, my wife has decided to challenge me on this point, and suggest in front of our kids over and over that we try this mega church. I have spoken with her alone, peacefully and tactfully, about not doing this, but she has continued to do so anyway. Because she does not prefer the CREC church she will almost always restate in front of the kids that she wants to consider the non-denominational church her parents attend. I have said that I don’t mind if she visits if it is just with the intention of worshiping with her parents here and there, but I have made it clear that we are not pursuing that church as a home. But yet she continues to tell me how much she and the kids dislike the CREC church and it’s to the point where she is almost refusing to go, and using the kids’ preferences as leverage to undermine my leadership. As I said Doug, I feel strongly that God is leading us to this CREC church, and my wife has fought me on this from day 1. She claims she has been submissive in going there for 5 weeks even though she doesn’t like it, but she is basically saying now that she is fed up. Anyway, all this to say: how do I proceed in what I think is the Lord’s leading without being too harsh, and yet making it clear that the CREC church is the decision I’ve resolved is best for my family.

BR

I am a young man in my mid-twenties. Excluding communion wine, I have not consumed any alcoholic drink. I come from a heavy drinking state and did not grow up with a religious tradition avoiding alcohol. I’m quite puzzled by the interest in alcohol particularly by Christians who don’t sin with it. From my view, I only see potential downsides to drinking, obviously drunkenness, but also other negative health effects (weight gain, testosterone decrease, etc). I will acknowledge a medicinal benefit for certain things, and also the benefit back in the day when clean water was harder to come by and refrigeration was not available. We don’t have that latter problem today.
What would you say to a guy like me? I know it’s lawful to use, but is there a benefit I’m missing out on? Or it is a matter of preference? “Some people like this, and some people like that”.

Ben

I’m currently reading New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin, and there is something on pages 45-47 of it that I think provokes an interesting question in light of the recent AmFest Talmud controversy.
Praying after a meal appears to be spoken of in the Older Testament (Deut. 8:10), but praying before eating cannot be found anywhere explicitly. However, Jesus did exactly that during the Last Supper (Matt. 26:26). According to Bivin, this was a rabbinic tradition, therefore indicating “evidence that Jesus adhered to the rulings of the Oral Torah in his use of various blessings” (p. 45). If this is true, than does this mean that Jesus kept some of the Pharisees’ extra-biblical traditions, and if so how should we differentiate between the appropriate Jewish traditions and the ones that Christ says make God’s word void (Mark 7:13)?
I’d just like to know what your thoughts are on this.
Your young brother in the faith,

Samuel

My question is threefold.
First, in ask Doug on the unseen realm you mention a council of gods. How do you explain that?
Second, do you think the third heaven is a physical place or more specifically it is a place in 4th dimensional space external to the universe (earth, first heaven, and second heaven)?
Third, would you say that angels have a normal dual nature of soul and body, are primarily spirits that can take on a body, or have a dual nature of soul and body but with their body being so unlike what we would call a body that we may consider it something entirely other.

PT

I have a large family that is generally happy, but I have some shortcomings in managing my household well that I want to overcome. Thing is, there are a lot of great books on aspects of managing your household (raising sons, finances, marriage, etc), but very few, if any, that provide a comprehensive picture. The ones that do attempt a high-level overview tend to over-spiritualize, or come from authors who don’t seem to have thought through the challenges facing large families. What should I do? What books should I be reading? And if you’re open to crowd sourcing this one, are there any successful dads out there who have seen a large brood through to maturity who could weigh in?

Douglas

How can the Talmud be “exegetical gold” when it blasphemes the Son? Seriously Doug, what are you even thinking? Return to Christ.

Hunter

Hope you’re having a blessed day, Mr. Wilson! Recently, I’ve seen a whole bunch of people like J.D. Hall on X claiming that you “defended” the Talmud at AmFest simply because you said that there are some “wonderful insights into Scripture” contained in it. Are you planning on writing a blog post soon explaining the importance of knowing the historical context of the Newer Testament, a knowledge that requires an at least rudimentary knowledge of Second Temple Jewish theology?

Samuel

Regarding the post “Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step”
How do you differentiate between disagreements that are to be allowed in a Christian Nation (like those that separate Anglicans and Baptists), and those that must not be allowed (like a failure to recognize the intrinsic value of an unborn baby as an image-bearer of God)? I understand the impossibility of including jihadists, Aztecs, etc. in a Christian Nation, but I am unsure where to draw the line and why when it comes to Catholics, Jews, Anabaptists, Mormons, etc.

Aspen

Hi – I heard you mention I think on a recent interview that there is a church in your denomination in the Philippines. I was unable to find more information online. Can you provide any information on that? Our family may be moving from the US to the Philippines in the coming year or so.

Cole

Thanks for reposting “The Night Before Whatsit.” It is funny, ironic, insightful and still (sadly) appropriate. God bless you all with a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year’s!

Ted

Your comments about the Liberty spying on Israel seem to have no rhetorical weight unless they change the way Americans should feel about the incident. Hypothetically, of course.
It seems to me that the correct response to the Liberty attack would be USA cutting ties with Israel, or perhaps a declaration of war. The spying makes no difference in my mind. It explains a foreign country attacking my nation, but doesn’t change the proper response, because I’m on team America. It’s a near perfect parallel with the Pearl Harbor attack, which Roosevelt’s policies provoked. I’m still on team America.
How does your hypothetical change the proper American reaction to the attack on the Liberty?

Nathan

I am an independent researcher and writer working primarily on modern political history, intelligence operations, and contested historical events. I approach this work explicitly from a Christian perspective, with a concern for truth, moral accountability, and the obligation to bear honest witness to the record.
I recently saw your comments at AmFest regarding the USS Liberty. Given the seriousness of the subject, I’d welcome a substantive public debate on the matter.
My position is that the USS Liberty was deliberately attacked, and it was deliberately sent into harm’s way by the U.S. government. I’ve argued this at length in High Treason on the High Seas, grounding the case in documentary evidence and firsthand testimony—including my interview with USS Liberty survivor Ron Kukal, now deceased.
Your suggestion—“why don’t we question the CIA?”—misses the mark. I do question the CIA. I question the Pentagon. I question the White House. Framing the dispute as though critics of the official narrative are shielding American institutions is a strawman that entirely avoids the historical record rather than addressing it.
I’d be very keen on engaging with you on this topic—directly, publicly, and on the merits. If you’re willing to examine the evidence rather than deflect from it, I’ll gladly host the conversation on my platform or a platform of your choosing.

Scipio

God bless you brother and Merry Christmas! Doug I’ve been watching/listening to you for about 6 years now and I thank God all the time for your content and productivity. Please keep doing what you’re doing! Best of wishes.

Tony

I hope you are doing well, and that you are enjoying/enjoyed a marvelous, Merry Christmas!
I have a question about one of your answers from a letter last week. Somebody asked whether you would consider a man for eldership if he believed in a flat earth, to which you replied, “No.”
Just to ensure you know where I’m coming from, I think that response is fine, and I don’t necessarily have huge qualms about it. Also, to clear the air more, I’m not a flat-earther; I think we’ve done a fine job of proving that the earth is spherical, revolving around the sun, etc.
My question lies in the realm of asking, “Why?” The reason I ask is because I have learned in my Christian education growing up that Old Testament Israel/the peoples of the Ancient Near-East believed that the earth was flat, that Hades lay beneath the earth, and that the earth was encased in a dome, somewhat like a snow globe. Not only that, but historic Christians (I think Luther was one of them?) believed that certain passages in Scripture taught that the earth is this “snow globe.” This was because the same people of the ancient near East wrote much of the Scriptures. Some scholars say that their cosmology influenced how they described reality. Those same scholars would argue that the Lord worked within their faulty understanding of the world to teach them truths about His plan for the cosmos. In other words, the Lord, in crafting the Scriptures, would not have agreed with their cosmology, but He still used their cosmology to bring them to a fuller understanding of the revealing of the mystery of what he was doing in redemptive history. I’m also aware that the folks at Answers in Genesis have also done work attempting to prove that certain passages in Scripture speak of the Earth as being spherical,at least in the way we understand it to truly be.
All of that to say, again, I’m no flat-earther, nor would I think there’s any proof that there’s a flat earth. I just know that the Lord has used several broken/crooked/flat-earther sticks to create straight lines, as it were, in human history. I don’t know what Peter’s cosmology was, nor do I know what Paul’s cosmology was. I’m curious, as it does not seem like there’s scriptural evidence that believing in a flat earth would necessarily prevent a man, who is otherwise fit for eldership, from being an elder in a church. However, you’re also pastor of a church, and have been so for years; I think you know a thing or two about a thing or two. Perhaps I’m missing something?
Thank you again for all you do, Merry Christmas!

ON

I’m confused by this part of your reply to Ethan: “And if in the course of the marriage counseling it comes out that she would in fact abort any child that she conceived—that she was serious, in other words—you need to divorce her.”
I grew up being taught that the only two biblical reasons for divorce were infidelity and abandonment. Then, I learned there was another reason I hadn’t been taught: abuse. Now, I see your reply, which seems to be a fourth reason.
I’m not saying I disagree with these, or with your recommendation to Ethan. It just seems like there’s always another reason, complete with Biblical rationale, for divorce popping up quite frequently. And I’m left with the gnawing recognition that the main thing Jesus was combating in his discourses on divorce was divorce for “any and every reason”.
Can you help straighten me out and provide some clarity?

GRH

As we’re getting to the end of 2025, I was thinking back at many of the things that happened this year. One of the highlights was getting to meet you at ReformCon 2025. I want to thank you for the years of education and thought-provoking. I think I can make thought provoking a noun right?
So, here’s my thought . . . I’ve read your book, and some others about this topic. I am really confused at the end of the day as to why any Christian would want to be led by rules that were not based upon the teachings and instructions and admonitions of the Bible. That’s really where my discussion begins and ends with that.
However, my question for you is, do you think that we are really struggling with this topic because of tribalism or denominationalism (or something I haven’t considered). And when I say struggle, I’m talking within the Christian community only. The reason I ask about denominationalism is because I don’t understand where the fear factor of a Christian Nation comes into play for a Christian. I live in the United Soviet Socialist State of Illinois and I would relish the idea of being led by a Reformed Presbyterian governor, even though I am a Reformed Baptist.
Can you elaborate as to what you think the grinding point of contention is within the Christian community and in particular the reformed Christian community?
Thank you, Pastor Doug. Many blessings to you and the generations that you lead.

Vernon

In case you haven’t seen this yet, I think you will find it fascinating.

Daniel

“The Talmud is an enormous sprawl of words, formed over the course of centuries. It was assembled by fallen human beings, and so is an amalgam of good sense, exegetical insights, weirdness, and perverseness” (AM&H p. 52). 4/7. Replying to @douglaswils:
Rev. Wilson won’t debate this writer so I must do it in bits and pieces on X. His rehabilitation of the Talmud Bavli is clever in that it is qualified. He’s against it yet he finds it contains “exegetical insights.” The Berean Christian can gain “insight” into the Torah sheBichtav even though the “insights” are anchored in and subservient to the Torah sheBeal peh, the preeminent oral law of the Pharisees committed to writing in the Mishnah after the crucifixion of Israel’s Moshiach. This anchor subverts the “exegetical” enterprise Doug touts.
Like Popes John-Paul II and Benedict XVI, Wilson finds a smidgen of commendation for the Pharisees in Jesus’ statement about their occupation of the judgement seat of Moses. He seems to be attempting to demonstrate that in some cases the Pharisees are not the children of hell, murderers of the prophets, a brood of vipers and the implacable agents of spiritual ruin.
Matthew 23:2-3 is an acknowledgement that the Pharisees have occupied the seat, as Trapp notes (Commentary [2022], vol. 5, p. 238): it was the rightful seat of the “priests and Levites . . . but the Scribes and Pharisees had for the present taken it upon them, stept into the chair and there set themselves.”
It is worthwhile to read Matthew 23:2-3 in the context of Romans 2:17-21.
Pastor Wilson appears to be anxious to find an escape clause for the truth that the Pharisees in their actions are wholly evil. Hence, he forces an unsupported conclusion.
The fact that they occupied the Mosaic seat was no positive reflection on the Pharisees. Jesus points to their reciting external knowledge without internal obedience. This is an indictment, not an encomium—testimony to their ever-present corrosive and corrupting hypocrisy.
Moreover, the rabid and disgusting hate speech against Jesus and Mary places the Talmud in the genre of diabolic grimoire. Were they to be inspired by their Senior Fellow of Theology (Wilson), the spectacle of seminarians at Greyfriars Hall searching the Gemara for sagacious insights into the Word of God would be a grotesque mockery.
Furthermore, there is an epistemological issue related to the rabbinic supremacist nullification of Scripture. In matters of halakhic decision-making the Talmud teaches, “We no longer listen to heavenly voices.” In the same tractate [Bava Metzia 59b] God debates the rabbis and God loses. The Talmud goes far has having Him celebrate His defeat).
Rev. Wilson’s rehabilitation of the reputation of the Talmud of Babylon appears strained. His notion, and I am paraphrasing, that there are some good things in a bad book and we Christians should consult these gems for our edification, can be said about any evil tome, including Mein Kampf.
Many of us would recognize that if Wilson’s argument were proffered for the book penned by the criminal Hitler, the likelihood that the one making the recommendation was a neo-Nazi, or at the very least sympathetic to Hitler, is probably not a bridge too far. The broken clock that was Hitler no doubt managed to be correct about some things twice a day. This fact as a ground for taking up Mein Kampf in search of “insights” is patently dangerous. I say the same for Wilson’s asservation.
For the past 25 years of so, I have been studying Jacob Neusner’s translation of the Mishnah, the nearly 40 books of the Steinsaltz Talmud, as well as Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, the Shuchan Aruch of Joseph Karo, Chabad’s Tanya, Meir Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah, and more recently the texts of Joseph “Halachic Man” Soloveitchik, the Torat HaMelech of Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur, and the Zohar published by Stanford University Press.
In the wake of this reading, my trinitarian Christianity is stronger than ever due to a special grace I believe is bestowed upon those who undertake this ordeal for the sake of the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who are equipped to engage in hermeneutic analysis. I would never in a million years recommend to Christians in general perusing the Talmud in search of wise “insights.” It would be reckless. If it were most anyone else I would say it would be malicious. In Doug’s case I do not believe malice is involved.
I am the author of an 1,100 page textbook, “Judaism Discovered” where these matters are explicated at greater length. Despite repeated debate challenges over the past year, Doug has not condescended to acknowledge the offers. I recall his pleading some months ago with Rod Dreher to come to Moscow to converse publicly and enjoy the full hospitality of the Christ Kirk community.
I am an obscure author with nothing approaching the magnitude of Mr. Dreher’s celebrity. One supposes that I should hope to become a celebrity myself, given that the challenge my research poses to Doug’s qualified Talmud fandom is insufficient to cause him to deign to meet me for a public, recorded exchange of views. Perhaps if I made the challenge on Ross Douthat’s NY Times podcast, Douglas would be more likely to deign to accept.
My criterion for agreeing to debate is predicated on whether the critic doing so offers a genuine, substantial challenge to the claims in my books and broadcasts, along with a guarantee that the debate will be public and recorded for posterity.
Michael Hoffman ©2025. Dec. 24, 2025
https://grokipedia.com/page/Michael_A._Hoffman_II
A refutation of certain allegations by Rev. Wilson about the history of the Early American Republic is here: https://x.com/HoffmanMichaelA/status/1977109274481639520

Michael