Contents
Tattling
What is the difference between tattle-tailing and tale-bearing? Any practical pointers on how to teach kids the difference?
Thanks.Josh
Josh, in teaching little children about tattling, I would use the verses about tale-bearing. I see the former as a subset of the latter. For kids the distinctive tell is that little whine in the voice, indicating that they want their sibling to be in the soup. That is tattling. But if your daughter comes in to let you know that her little brother is on the roof of the garage, that’s not tattling. That’s helpful information.
Tucker and So Forth
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
Ian, thanks for your thoughts.
A Practical Dilemma
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
BR, I am very sorry for your dilemma. But here’s the thing. This is not a church-choice situation, this is a marriage-counseling situation. You need to worship the Lord while you sort this out, so find a third church that you both know will not be where you wind up. Go there as a family to worship, but make an appointment with the pastor of your old church, or a trusted biblical counselor. This is the start of a marriage breaking down, and you really need to address that first.
Drinking Is Not Mandatory
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
Ben, if you have no interest in drinking, there is no reason to drink. It is certainly not mandatory. Knock yourself out. The one thing you need to realize is that drinking is not only normal in our day, but was also normal in biblical times as well—and not just as disinfected water.
Rabbinic Tradition?
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
Samuel, you know that a tradition has gone astray when it causes you to supplant what the Word actually says for the sake of the tradition. In other words, because of the tradition you do not do something else. In the example you cite, praying before a meal, there is nothing like that.
Three Questions
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
PT, shooting from the hip here. I don’t explain the council of the gods, I just think that was the set-up. God created a company of celestial powers that is referred to various times in Scripture. I think Michael Heiser is good on this point. I think the third heaven is in this cosmos, a physical place. And from the options you mention on the soul/body problem with angels, I would incline toward the third option.
Books for Big Families?
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
Douglas, not only am I open to crowd-sourcing this one, I need to crowd-source this one. Anyone out there know of good material for fathers with large families?
A Question That Has Come Up a Lot Recently
How can the Talmud be “exegetical gold” when it blasphemes the Son? Seriously Doug, what are you even thinking? Return to Christ.Hunter
Hunter, attacking the Talmud like this is glibly assuming that it had one author, or one consistent editorial policy. But it is a collection of rabbinical teachings and traditions that spans centuries. Some of the rabbis concerned were messed up and perverted, some of them were weirdos, and some of them had very valuable things to say. If you want to know more about what I am talking about, consider David Mitchell’s Messiah ben Joseph.
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
Samuel, it appears that I need to. There was an astonishing amount of ignorance on this point, particularly ignorance regarding the Reformed tradition’s interaction with the rabbis.
Christian Nationalist Limits
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
Aspen, politics is the art of the possible. If I were building an ideal Christian republic in the sky, it would be Protestant and evangelical. But we are here, and so are the Mormons and Jews. That is why I have urged a “mere Christendom,” which would include Catholics, and have carve-outs for Mormons and Jews. The anabaptists don’t want to play, so we leave them alone.
CREC Philippines?
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
Cole, the person to check with would be our presiding minister, Uri Brito.
Thanks for the Doggerel
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
Ted, thank you.
The USS Liberty
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
Nathan, it doesn’t change what the proper response should have been. LBJ should not have called the planes back that were scrambled to go help the Liberty. That would be an ordinary common sense response. So then the question then becomes, “why were they called back?” The hypothesis (please note the italics) I put forward explained it by saying that Israel had LBJ over a barrel. If he countered the attack militarily, then they would lay out their evidence suggesting the United States was playing both sides in the war, which would have been an enormous problem for LBJ domestically. But of course the expectation would be that the United States would shoot back if it were an ordinary situation.
But while we are on the subject (again), I would like to point out that many of those online who are waxing indignant over my suggestion that the US may have been in some measure in the wrong in that incident (where 34 sailors died) are the same people who have been suggesting that the US was in the wrong in WW2, where over 400,000 American servicemen died. But wisdom is vindicated by her children.
But while we are on the subject (again), I would like to point out that many of those online who are waxing indignant over my suggestion that the US may have been in some measure in the wrong in that incident (where 34 sailors died) are the same people who have been suggesting that the US was in the wrong in WW2, where over 400,000 American servicemen died. But wisdom is vindicated by her children.
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
Scipio, thanks for writing. But given your description, I am unsure what the topic would be.
Thanks Much
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
Tony, thanks. I intend to keep on, Lord willing.
Flat Earth and Elder Qualifications Question
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
ON, thanks and great questions. Two things. First, I agree that there are many aspects of the biblical cosmology that collide with modern assumptions. Where that is demonstrable in the text, I accept the ancient cosmology, and not the modern one. Think C.S. Lewis and The Discarded Image. So I have no problem with the Star of Bethlehem, for example, or a subterranean Hades. But sometimes unbelieving scholars attribute more odd things to the biblical cosmology than are in the text, and I am not bound by their speculations. The snow globe would be in that category. So that’s one thing.
Now to the other point. Let us say that some great man of God, Augustine say, believed some things about the world that were just flat wrong, like the strange creatures in the Antipodes. Given the state of knowledge in his day, such an error would be understandable because we hadn’t been to Australia yet. It would be like him believing things about China that were flat wrong, but only wrong because he had never been there. If Augustine believed that Beijing and Shanghai were ten miles apart, that would be understandable. But if a modern man insisted on something like that, then after three vain attempts to show him otherwise, we would conclude that he was a crank. And a crank shouldn’t be an elder. So the answer is that Augustine thought what he did because of lack of evidence, which is different than believing them in the teeth of the evidence.
Now to the other point. Let us say that some great man of God, Augustine say, believed some things about the world that were just flat wrong, like the strange creatures in the Antipodes. Given the state of knowledge in his day, such an error would be understandable because we hadn’t been to Australia yet. It would be like him believing things about China that were flat wrong, but only wrong because he had never been there. If Augustine believed that Beijing and Shanghai were ten miles apart, that would be understandable. But if a modern man insisted on something like that, then after three vain attempts to show him otherwise, we would conclude that he was a crank. And a crank shouldn’t be an elder. So the answer is that Augustine thought what he did because of lack of evidence, which is different than believing them in the teeth of the evidence.
Divorce and Capital Crimes
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
GRH, in those cases where abuse is lawful grounds, it would have to be a level of abuse that was simply a form of abandonment. So I don’t take that as a third category, but as a subset of the second one. This third category could be described this way—if in a well-ordered society, a person guilty of certain crimes would have been executed, but in our society they are not, does their spouse have grounds for divorce? Suppose a wife discovers one day that her husband had been arrested as a serial killer. He is tried, convicted, and put in prison for three life sentences. Does she have grounds for divorce? I would argue that she does. I would certainly not be willing to discipline her in the church if she sought divorce. In the case described in the letter, if a man is convinced that his wife really would abort any child that she conceived, then how in the world could he possibly make love to her?
Successfully Spooked
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
Vernon, I think this has happened as a result of successful propaganda. Christians have come to believe that any “theocracy” would immediately become tyrannical, and moreover, tyrannical in the name of Jesus. This propaganda has been successful because the church has largely abandoned an all-encompassing vision of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. There has not been instruction in Christian worldview thinking, in other words.
Return of the Jewish Question
In case you haven’t seen this yet, I think you will find it fascinating.Daniel
Daniel, thank you. I did find it fascinating. Very good article.
More on the Talmud and Me
“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/1977109274481639520Michael
Michael, here it is in a nutshell. One of the reasons why I think it would be fruitless to engage you on what the Talmud teaches is that I know for a fact that you don’t know what I teach. I am no expert on the Talmud, but I am an expert on what I am saying, and your representations of what I am saying are off in the left field bleachers. Your letter here is filled with misrepresentations of what I think. So I think I’ll pass.
Reference: The USS Liberty vs Nathan, Scipio and others. Where is the outrage for the USS Pueblo? Where is the outrage for the US F-86 pilots shot down by Soviet pilots flying MiG-15s over Munich during the Korean Conflict? Where is the outrage for the numerous attacks on US forces in South Korea by North Korean special operations men conducted over decades? Where is the outrage for the Chinese shooting down an American F-104 which was off course near Hainan Island instead of being over North Vietnam where the pilot thought he was and holding him as a POW? Where… Read more »
Whataboutism all the way down 🥱
No, this is not whataboutism. When the Soviet Union, or North Korea or our own diplomats did tremendously bad things to Americans, nobody cares. Not a single tear shed or letter to the editor written. When Israel is accused of some nefarious action or actually does do something we dislike, there is considerable outrage because it is Israel, not because of what actually happened. If you are going to be outraged at Israel, you should also be outraged at the Ukraine, North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, Mexico, NGOs that used tax payer money to expedite moving violent, dangerous illegals into… Read more »
Personally, I don’t disagree with most of what you posted, but I think there’s a serious weakness in the way you framed the argument, because a lot of people will very reasonably say that they are upset at China, North Korea, etc doing various bad things to us. But you won’t hear about these as much because they’re uncontroversially bad. Hardly anybody, even on the radical Left, really wants (say) Chinese hackers to damage US power plants. But there’s no alpha in decrying that. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ for a long discussion of this. In short, most of the effect you’re noticing… Read more »
Christians, so-called, don’t have a very good history when it comes to taking over government, the Salem witch trials being just one tiny aspect of this.
The Calvinist govt of Scotland after the reformation were hardly distinguishable from the East German Communist party in their control freakery. For a brief second it even made me wonder if the Christian faith is true if this is how its representatives behave who in the case of these Calvinists, were proud that they have the truth and have got everything nicely sorted out.
The point is not to take over government as the communists did in Russia or as the communists are attempting to do today in America.
The point is to follow the Great Commission believing that Jesus does have all authority right here on earth as in heaven, baptizing and teaching people to follow all that Jesus commanded. It’s simple. Get up. Get moving. Follow Jesus.
The Salem witch trials were lynchings
You are right that this was not government policy, but the mentality behind it came from the same source, namely medieval Catholicism and its offspring, institutional protestantism.
“The reformation was actually an internecine Catholic dispute”.
Discuss.
Yet Christendom, however badly distorted and watered down, is the part of the world the people in Secular-dom, Islam-o-dom, and Pagandom want to move to.
Is it uncharitable to point out that Americans ignore Kissinger refusing to get POWs out of North Vietnam and the Benghazi debacle? Both were Americans killing Americans for unsavory purposes. Is it uncharitable to point out that American Christians have forgotten the successful SARS CoV-2 operation because they don’t understand basic virology taught in school health classes and are afraid to follow the Bible’s commands for worship? Instead, they closed the doors and went home. I don’t think American Christians are duped or fearful of propaganda against Christian government, but instead are desiring self more than Jesus. -More than twenty… Read more »
I don’t want to get too far into the weeds, so I’ll just say that this list of criticisms has three main problems: Everything you said has some merit, but most of these are uncharitable and sometimes untrue characterizations (why are you blaming Americans in general for a 52-year-old fiasco, when no one from Gen X down had anything to do with it?) Most of these do nothing to advance your previous thesis that American Christians resist genuine Christian influence on government, business, and families The one exception, ongoing reliance on public schools, actually works against that theory, since a… Read more »
We will disagree on uncharitable or untrue. Please let me know when preachers start preaching from scripture again and parishioners are no longer calling for women and homosexuals to be in church office. Please let me know when Christians pull their kids from public schools. Unlike the feel good pay reparations efforts underway today, there are times to repent from others sins as shown in the Bible over and over. In Kings we see the contrast between those who were brought up by evil kings but followed the Lord instead of the false gods of their fathers. Contrast Josiah removing… Read more »
How dirty do Netanyahu’s boots have to get for you to stop licking them?
Go back to sleep, 4786Chris.
Ben, you ought not “only see potential downsides” of alcohol, for that smells of willful blindness. Scripture itself commends wine for more than medicinal purposes, saying it is given to cheer us and to be enjoyed. Enjoyment of delicious beverages is clearly an upside. So is relaxation and social experience. One might as well say they “only see potential downsides” of all sugared desserts. Others have slid down this slope into pharisaical judgments or personal orthorexia. By all means, don’t bother with alcoholic beverages if they give you no pleasure. But take care to maintain your footing and be generous… Read more »
Hello Nathan and Happy New Year. While I agree that the Bible does not prohibit the use of alcohol in moderation, and while I’m also blessed by most of Doug’s perspectives, I have been concerned about the Wilsonian pattern of flaunting alcohol consumption, and especially about the (reported, not observed by me) practice of serving beer at his conventions, as well as his inclusion of hard liquor consumption in his videos and blog posts.. My concern centers around the fact that there are some people who are genetically predisposed to alcoholism and should never take a first drink. The first… Read more »
Whether someone has a “genetic predisposition” or a sin nature is possibly a matter of debate. But setting that on the shelf for a moment, because our bodies do in fact process things differently, let’s say it’s reasonable to assume some folks can hold their liquor better than others. What then? If we take the position that we are not to comport ourselves in public in ways that might upset folks with “genetic predispositions,” we are creating two distinct but equally difficult problems. 1) It sets a standard not easily followed in other areas. Should we not show videos of… Read more »
I speak as someone who almost never drinks alcohol because it often gives me a headache but also because I don’t trust myself not to overuse things that, minus the headache, give me pleasure. I agree with you that predisposition to alcohol abuse is 50% genetic but, according to most experts, nobody becomes physically addicted from the first drink. Some people find the first time they become slightly tipsy so pleasing that they want to do it again. And again and again. I think that people whose family tree has alcoholics perched on every branch should be warned long before… Read more »
Hello Andrew and Jill, Neither of you has addressed the central questions I raised in my post above, namely once again: why there is the ongoing, intentional, in-your-face emphasis on consuming alcohol by Doug’s ostensibly Christian ministry? What is the motivation for that emphasis in a MINISTRY TO THE PUBLIC on such an optional matter best left to individual conscience? Jill, you make a good point about families of alcoholics who need to teach their children about the dangers, and also a good point that everyone has personal responsibility for his conduct regarding alcohol and all other matters, regardless of… Read more »
Most preachers like stirring things up a bit and Mr Wilson is no exception to this. “… and let us consider how to stir up one another …” Heb 10 : 24 RSV
My suggestion is that Doug enjoys a bit of notoriety, especially over against those who are not ‘man’ enough to cope with alcohol.
It might also be due to those on the conservative right prizing individual liberty over any notion of the collective. The individual decides this rather than ‘socialist pooftahs’.
A happy new year to all!
Yeah, I guess wanting to “stir up one another” could be involved, until we add the rest of the verse, “unto love and good works.” Stirring things up is obviously part of his schtick, and if gaining notoriety is part of his objective as opposed to promoting the Gospel, it would fit right in. At best, though, it seems incongruous when considered against his clear minded intellect and gravitas in most other matters about which he speaks. Could be that part of him that “enjoys a bit of notoriety” could use some mortification, of which, of course, we all have… Read more »
Oops, misspelled “shtick.” Sorry!
Happy new year. Uh, flaunting alcohol was notable in the ministry of a certain Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, tho not the selfsame way it is in Doug’s. And stuff you’re not talking about may be relevant to stuff you are talking about, since if you make a certain kind of mistake with off-topic stuff you might, or might not, be making a similar kind of mistake with the topic itself. And spiritual weakness is always somewhere in the neighborhood. (John Frame in “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” has a few pages on how technical logical fallacies may sometimes… Read more »
Not to be too pointed here, but the main logical fallacies I’ve seen in this dialogue have been in the failure of all respondents, yourself included, to address my plainly stated point, preferring instead to make other avoidance commentary. Yes, I must have missed that passage—in John’s Gospel, was it?—where Jesus sat on the flaming sofa smoking that cigar and swigging bourbon so He could gather attention in order to promote the Gospel. Bless you; I’m sure if my overriding impulse was to defend Doug at all points and at all costs, I’d probably continue to deflect too. Best to… Read more »
Luke 7:34
Would that roughly be the equivalent of dining with tax collectors and accepting the worship of fallen women while drinking enough to be accused of being a “glutton and wine-bibber” — which accusations He did in fact make an issue used to exemplify His teachings?
Happy New Year, SQ. My first point was not a straw man argument; it was basic parallelism. If you create a standard for public displays in one area–don’t drink whiskey on stage–they you should be ready and able to create the same standard for public displays in other areas. The standard should be equally applied, and for that standard to break down in other areas–feasting, movies, peanut butter–then the standard (itself) necessarily breaks down when it comes to drinking in public. And it is critical that we know our audience. If we simply don’t know them, then we are not… Read more »
Again, a misstatement of the point. I certainly didn’t “ask him to keep his liquor in his home and never let it be seen,” as you framed it above. Re-read my posts. He’s welcome to flaunt his alcohol all around Moscow and bar-hop every night there or anywhere else he is conducting his private life. I guess this will be my last post in which I try to get across to his sycophant defenders that my question has to do only with HIS PUBLIC PROMOTION OF ALCOHOL ON HIS PLATFORMS OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. If someone can find the place where… Read more »
He commanded us to drink in His name as a *form of worship.*
The exact same thing? No. Subject to the same criticism you’re leveling here? I don’t see why not.
(Note these are paraphrases)
Jesus to servants “bring this wine I just made to everyone at this wedding”
Jesus at the last supper “drink this wine, and keep drinking it in remembrance of me”
Jesus in the temple *flips tables and braids his own whip to drive the merchants out*
Doug is free in Christ to enjoy alcohol, in the settings and locations he also finds pleasant and which are legal. The only biblical qualifications I would see impacting this are first, not drinking to excess and second, not causing a brother to stumble. In the second qualification, Doug is not responsible for any Christian watching a public event, but rather for acts of specific individual care. Biblically, what problem do you have with this approach?
I give all the nexus of related behaviours that we see on the “Reformed man-o-sphere” the label “performative masculinity”. Everyone raising sons should identify it and point out to their boys that it has no real connection to godly masculinity as defined by Christ or his apostles. “Hey, we pump weights, we have large beards, we drink whisky and smoke cigars, don’t you see how really manly we are (*especially* when we diss feminism and talk about how patriarchal we are, that really takes some guts in our particular online bubble!), and so why don’t you buy what we’re selling,… Read more »
Beards:
Psalm 133:2
“It is like the precious oil on the head, running down on the beard, the beard of Aaron, running down on the collar of his robes.”
Strength:
1 Corinthians 16:13-14
“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”
Alcohol:
John 2:1-10
(Story of Jesus turning water into wine)
Luke 7:34
“The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”
Doug’s not a friend of sinners…quite the opposite, really. It’d be ok if he was humble, like Jesus was, but he is far from it…
Amen to all those. What’s your point?
Real men drink alcohol free …
Our former pastor who is Californian was into taking a group of men camping for a weekend, chopping a tree down with an axe, that sort of thing.
My wife interestingly found that all a bit silly if that is what being masculine entails!
There are going to be some very surprised faces on some complementarian men who bullied their wives into submission (Eph 5) yet think they will get a well done good and faithful servant for this.
Daniel’s “Jewish Question” (JQ) article is rather long. It first sets out an anti-semitic case, fairly I think: Sigmund Freud and other Jews destroyed the West! and then shows this case to be factually incorrect, hence slanderous. (By “fairly” I mean I think he shows he knows what the bad guys think.)
RE: Tattling.
Whenever one of our children came to tell us something about their sibling, before hearing them out we led with the question: “Is what you are about to tell us going to get your brother out of trouble, or into trouble?”.
Hah, love I made it onto a post. Sad that DW sidestepped with an unfaithful response, as always.
Why would I need a book that is some good and some exceedingly horrendous blasphemy of my Lord and Savior when I have Scripture, which is always good, infinitely insightful, and loudly proclaims the Good Work and praise of our Lord and Savior, that is Jesus, the Christ. I will repeat: Return to Christ.