You cannot love your enemies if you don’t have any.
—
Matt Walsh addresses the lame efforts being made at celebrating America’s 250th birthday:
—
Be the kind of man other men can follow.
Hold yourself to a high standard.
Be a good man who is good at being a man.
—
Proverbs teaches us that unrighteous anger makes a man look foolish. Usually, everyone can see the folly except the man himself.
—
Anne Kennedy has done some good work exposing the folly of Shiela Gregoire. It’s not surprising that as an egalitarian, Gregoire would end up pro-LGBTQ. See here for one example:
Kennedy points out that Gregoire traffics in false dichotomies, eg, “flourishing” vs holiness:
“Throughout Wray Gregoire’s content, the reaction against what is now commonly referred to as Purity Culture23 recasts the fruit of a person’s life not as holy obedience to the commands of God but as “flourishing” — a category comprised of mental health, good boundaries, and healthy relationships. These are not defined by Scripture but by what most evangelicals think about them. The sexual purity of young Christians is good only in so far as it does not make them miserable, or compromise the happiness and safety they experience later in life…The metric — human flourishing — becomes a measure used to judge Scripture. It allows her and her co-authors to espouse the view about sexuality derived from those promoting the LGBTQ acronym….For anyone seeking to remain faithful both to the biblical text and to the traditions of the church for the last two thousand years, it is important to see the sleight of hand played by Wray Gregoire in her argument. The nebulous threat of suffering is leveraged to scare parents who are already concerned about their daughters. Vulnerable and anxious, they then seek advice from the expert who tells them, effectively, there is nothing they can do except affirm the sexual inclinations of the child and submit to “comprehensive sex education.” Then, when the parent might think, “Wait, what about the Bible?” Wray Gregoire casts biblical Christianity as “anti-homosexual” religion, promises “dead kids,” and exhorts them not to do “harm.” The God of the Bible, for Wray Gregoire, represents hate rather than love, death rather than life, and danger rather than safety. Observe that she quotes no Scripture in this section except to say that Jesus loved “marginalized people.” The two studies she cites are moving and may be helpful for understanding current trends, but they don’t prove causation. Being told that sin is wrong is always painful, especially when one has embraced that sin as a core identity; but telling the truth is an act of love, even if it brings near-term misery to the hearer.”
Because Gregoire bases her views on culture and experience, rather than Scripture, she ends up in an odd place. Premarital sex is not a sin but a “bugaboo,” whereas porn is a big deal. But we cannot pick and choose among things the Bible condemns. In Scripture, premarital sex is a massive deal. Porn is too, obviously. But Gregoire seems more concerned with what men do with their eyes than what young women do with their bodies.
Kennedy makes an excellent criticism:
“I find it a bit ironic that Wray Gregoire thinks the inclinations of the same-sex attracted adolescent girl must be affirmed, but healing from a pornography addiction can’t happen by the kindly and forgiving grace of marriage, both by disciplining one’s mind and by getting to have sex with one’s own wife. To “focus” your desire on your wife, for Wray Gregoire, is just lust, yet another means of objectification…Lust is wrong wherever it occurs, of course, but a man desiring his wife isn’t lust, it is a chaste marriage. How is a porn-addicted husband going to gradually transform lust into proper desire? It isn’t a matter of mind over matter. He is an embodied person and so is his wife. They are both sinners. It will take a while unless God performs a miracle. I agree entirely that “addressing the spiritual element” is the way out of our current troubles, especially in the context of conjugal affection. Unfortunately, Wray Gregoire’s view of marriage and sex is so earthly bound, it is almost no good.”
Some of Gregoire’s critiques of evangelical teachings on sex have validity. But her proposed solution – basically androgyny – is disastrous. She sidesteps the most important issue in sexless marriages, namely the issue of attraction. And her messaging to men – that they should become more like women, essentially – makes the problem worse. We know what kind of men women are attracted to. We have several thousands of years of human history to draw from. We have sociology and psychology, which when done right, reach the obvious conclusion. We have countless books and other forms of art. And we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that what women are actually attracted to is traditional (aka “toxic”) masculinity.
—
Be unapologetically Christian in everything you do.
The Christian faith is not confined to our heads and hearts. It is not a private religion. Jesus is lord over all of life.
—
What Charlie Kirk did, and what Nick Fuentes, Andrew Tate, etc. fail to do, is give young men a recipe for life success. Young men need a mission. They need a structure. They need the wisdom that comes from good fathers, whether biological or spiritual.
—
Modern evangelicals could never have turned back the medieval Muslim invasion. We know that because they can’t turn back the modern Islamic invasion when it would be far easier to do so. They are nice rather than virtuous. They are cowards rather than courageous.
—
You cannot build a movement being reactionary. This is the problem with much of the new/alt/radical right. It is reactionary rather than principled.
—
Thomas Sowell on the Great Depression:
“There’s this narrative out there that the reason we had mass unemployment in the 1930s was because the market failed.”
It so happens that for the 12 months following the stock market crash, we never hit double digits of unemployment. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent two months after the crash and started going down.
The unemployment rate was down to 6.3 percent when the federal government figured it had to intervene. And that’s when the downward movement reversed and we never saw 6.3 percent again for the next decade.
It’s clear as crystal that the disaster came after federal intervention.”
—
Jon Harris gives a good overview of the Zach Garris case here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/HcCjyvJiCuY?si=K9iOo4SCkylX7SNC
See also:
https://jonharris.substack.com/p/the-trial-of-zach-garris
Matthew Everhard gives a sane assessment here:
—
The psychiatrists have spoken. Feminist women are disproportionately wrecking the country.
“PSYCHIATRIST SAYS “WOMEN ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY” — AND THE INTERNET IS MELTING DOWN
Psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald is going viral after appearing on The Edit Alaverdyan Podcast and making what many people are calling one of the most controversial statements of the year.
His claim?
“Women are disproportionately destroying this country.”
But that’s only the beginning.
According to McDonald:
- America has become afraid to criticize women
- society constantly calls out male flaws but ignores female ones
- weak men are enabling the problem
- fathers are failing to step up
- and what he calls “toxic femininity” is driving some of the most destructive cultural trends in the country
McDonald argues that many of America’s biggest problems aren’t political at all…
They’re symptoms of a deeper imbalance between masculine and feminine influence.
The comments immediately exploded:
- “This man just said what millions are thinking.”
- “This is one of the most controversial takes I’ve heard all year.”
- “He’s identifying a real problem nobody wants to discuss.”
- “Blaming women for society’s problems is insane.”
Now the internet is completely divided over whether Dr. McDonald is:
- exposing a real societal problem
- wildly oversimplifying complex issues
- or saying something most public figures are afraid to say
Be honest… who do you think is doing more damage to society right now: toxic men or toxic women?”
—
“The remnant of the Sodomites who remained in the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the land.”
1 Kings 22:46 (a good text to keep in mind with “Pride month” right around the corner)
—
Christians are always playing with house money. I mean, what’s the worst thing that can happen to you? Death? Jesus has already defeated death. The Christian lives with a secure hope. He is anchored to Christ. He knows God rules all things for his good.
—
On December 12, 2015, I preached on Jesus cleansing the temple from Mark 11. I used this illustration:
“Imagine if somebody went into the United States Capitol building and started overturning congressmen’s desks and shutting everything down so bills couldn’t be discussed or laws passed and drove everybody out from the building. we’d call that person some kind of terrorist. And if that person went on to say that the Capitol building was going to be destroyed so that not one stone of that building would be left upon another, there’s going to be this catastrophic nation-ending, era-ending judgment that’s going to fall upon the Capitol building, we’d probably say that man needs to be arrested. He’s being seditious. He needs to be arrested and punished and perhaps even executed because he is a threat to national security. Now ratchet that up about 50 notches and that’s how the Jews viewed Jesus’ action in the temple.”
If I used that illustration today, most people would probably think it was an allusion to J6 and the “stop the steal” rally. I don’t think J6 was an insurrection, and I don’t think the J6ers should be considered terrorists. I do think those who entered the capitol were dumb and broke the law. There was some degree of violence, though Democrats have greatly exaggerated it (while ignoring or excusing the far, far greater and more egregious violence of the BLM riots). Many were punished legally, though more severely than they deserved. But I could never use the same illustration today because the political connotations would be all wrong. Funny how that happens.
—
I was talking to an alt-right guys a while back and he said to me something like, “You know what you find everywhere there is human misery and suffering? Jews.”
I said, “You know what else you find everywhere there is human misery and suffering? Gentiles.”
Sinners are gonna sin.
That’s just the way the world is.
Trying to get other people to repent of their sins instead of taking responsibility for your own is an effeminate pathway.
—
“We sometimes hear it said: It is no matter what one believes, provided his heart and life are all right.”
Well, I suppose there is a sense in which that is true.
lt is no matter if the fountain be corrupt, providing the stream be pure. It is no matter if the tree be bad, providing the fruit be good. lt is no matter if both compass and sailing-chart he wrong: provided the sailing be all right.
But who ever heard of such a thing?
“Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
A man whose principles are wrong, his heart and life will be wrong in the same proportion.”
—JP Foster (1880)
—
“Reagan understood instinctively that modern liberalism represented a rejection of the constitutional premises of self-government. … Hence the core of Reagan’s political purpose was recovering an appreciation for the Founder’s understanding of the principles and practices of American government. This was central to his rhetoric to a much greater extent than it was to that of any other modern day president of either party. … ‘We’re for limited government,’ he said in his 1988 State of the Union speech, ‘because we understand, as the Founding Fathers did, that it is the best way of ensuring personal liberty and empowering the individual so that every American of every race and region share fully in the flowering of American prosperity and freedom.’”
— Steven F. Hayward, in The Age of Reagan, 1980-1989: The Conservative Counterrevolution.
—
“I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.”
— Ronald Reagan
—
“It is true that “the ancients didn’t think this way.” A good deal of what we do call “modernity” is a gift of the Bible and Christianity.
Here is a homey story to illustrate: When we were in India, I heard more than one story of westerners (most of them were very kind-hearted Christians who had not been there long) who lent money to their servants. It was rare to be paid back, and the lesson finally was “don’t lend money to your servants, you will only come to grief if you do.” If you want, and it seems wise, give money, but do not lend. One fellow told me that he heard eleven different stories about the lent money, and none of them were consistent.
When we were in New Delhi, we used to visit with Rev Dorsey. Rev Dorsey was a very wise, old, Presbyterian missionary who had been in India for upwards of 50 years. I asked him about this seeming “phenomena.” His answer was most illuminating. No surprise here for Rev Dorsey. “You have to remember, these people live in a world of mythology. The idea of the truth hardly exists for them…” A fascinating answer. Lying was very, very commonplace. Except, it wasn’t like lying exactly. It was rather, that it had never occurred to most of these “common Indians” that such a thing as the truth existed. If they lied, it had an almost innocence about it. The point being that our bread and butter, common sense notion of everyday “truth” turns out to be a gift of the Gospel. If the world isn’t “real”, but illusion, if anything can be transformed into anything else at the whim of any god, “truth” does not exist either, even in terms of paying back X number of Rupees or dollars on such and such a date. Most of the world through most of time have not been very certain about even the reality of the world itself. That is a late gift of Christianity, and is one of the dawning realizations of the late medieval period.
I suspect that Aristotle comes closer to this sense than anyone in the ancient world, and I doubt that Aristotle could maintain much sense of “realism” for more than a generation or so. Then, ancient
thought devolves again to more obvious pantheisms very quickly (and Aristotle did not escape an underlying pantheism, which was always a threat to his realism and “common sensism”–Aristotle needed Christianity to redeem what was in him. Stanley Jaki points out that the Moslem world had Aristotle for 500 years, and “did nothing with him.” The Christians got him, corrected his underlying pantheism, and “made the breakthrough to modern physics in less than 100 years”).
If you leave men to themselves, the reality of the space / time continuum, will erode in only a couple of generations. The rebirth of Idealism in all of its forms is just such an erosion. Is the world “really real” for Confucius, or for Buddha, or for Kant or Hegel or any of the following Absolute Idealists? It is questionable.
I am not sure that most modern physicists have any great assurance of the reality of what is “out there”.
It is absolutely true that “the ancients didn’t think that way.” The Bible is sui generis, it is unique, and it is the source of almost all that we regard as “good” that is around us. But we are so surrounded by it, that we have almost zero consciousness of it. It is like water to a fish.
It is exasperating to me. The hip, cool, with it, in thinkers are often so utterly ethno-centric. They doubt the reality of the world (being children of Kant, but living on the capital of Christianity, therefore protected and insulated), so all they can see in the text is once again themselves.
The Enlightenment and the Renaissance were impure episodes within Christendom. No one could have exalted reason and scientific observation, etc, etc, unless Christianity had cleared the way. Should we just go back to full tilt Hinduism? But that is not possible. Jesus is the enormous road block that will not allow us to ever really go back to the ancient archaic world.”
— Rich Bledsoe
—
Throughout history, the Christian Church has had to guard against the heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism is not an ordinary heresy, because it does not manifest itself as a set of defined beliefs. Rather, gnosticism is a tendency, a tendency to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas. Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize the Christian religion. Gnosticism transforms history into ideology and facts into philosophy. Gnosticism tends to see religion as man’s reflections about God and reality, instead of as God’s revelation of Himself and His Word to man.
The great anti-gnostic creed of the Christian faith is the Apostles’ Creed. The core of the Apostles’ Creed is a rehearsal of historical events: “born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. The third day He rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty.” The reason the Creed recites these events is that the gnostic movements in the early Church tended to downplay or even to reject them. “It does not really matter if these things happened,” said the gnostics. “What matters is the meaning, the truths, the great ideas we get from meditating on these things.”
— James Jordan
—
“Material is good.
Materialism isn’t.
Consuming is good.
Consumerism isn’t.
Rationality is good.
Rationalism isn’t.
Femininity is good.
Feminism isn’t.
We make good things bad things when we divorce them from God’s design.”
— Michael Foster
—
“If downgrading the material world is one part of the gnostic tendency in evangelicalism, a tendency to eternalize time is the other. The Bible is filled with chronological information, and it clearly presents an unbroken chronology from the creation of the world to the Babylonian exile. Nobody in the Church ever questioned this until the late nineteenth century. It has become commonplace now, however, to hear that the Bible is not really concerned with chronology, that there are “gaps” in the biblical chronology as it stands, and so forth. Indeed, the nineteenth century became an age of gap theories as far as evangelicals were concerned: Gaps were inserted between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, into the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11, into the chronologies of the kinds of Israel and Judah, and into the seventy weeks of years in Daniel 9. Such a cavalier approach to a text that abounds in detailed chronological information is only possible when men have already begun to think that chronology and history are not all that terribly important.”
— James B. Jordan
—
Me rushing to Zach Garris’ defense would not likely help him, given my own history with the PCA, but his indefinite suspension for social media comments is egregious and wicked.
The PCA has done a lot dumb things over the years. This might be the dumbest.
I’m certain Zach and I have some theological differences, but to suspend him on the grounds given is an absurd mockery of justice.
This makes me think of the proverb, “Men argue. Women police tone.” If Zach is guilty of “unwholesome speech,” what about Calvin and Luther? What about Paul and Jesus? What about Amos and Ezekiel? They all used language far, far more harsh than anything Zach has used. Even if one thought Zach was too harsh, that’s not really what Ephesians 4:29 is addressing anyway. And the punishment of indefinite suspension for a pastor is entirely disproportionate compared to the sin he is being accused of here.
—
I’ve appreciated some of what I’ve read from Insurrection Barbie, but this claim that biblical prophecy is always fulfilled “literally” simply isn’t true.
For example, Genesis 3:15 promises a seed of the woman who will bruise the serpent’s head, even as his own heel is bruised. Most, probably all, Christians would agree that this seed of the woman is Jesus. But the prophecy of bruising a snake’s head while having his own heel bruised is not fulfilled literally. Again, traditionally Christians believe this prophecy is fulfilled at the cross – when Jesus dies at Golgotha, he crushes Satan’s head (not that of a literal serpent), and Christ’s crucifixion wounds fulfill the “bruised heel” prophecy, but not literally.
We can see how prophecy often works by looking other examples in the OT. In Genesis 37:9, Joseph has a prophetic dream in which the sun, moon, and 11 stars bow down to him. That was fulfilled, but not “literally.” Obviously, the sun and moon were symbolic of his parents and the 11 stars symbolic of his brothers. The fulfillment is real, but the language of the prophecy was always symbolic.
Isaiah 13 is a prophecy of judgment on ancient Babylon, and it includes this language:
“For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.”
This was not fulfilled literally (obviously). But God did indeed put Babylon’s lights out, after a fashion. The sun, moon, and stars (as the example of Joseph’s dream shows) are often used in prophecy as symbols of political/earthly rulers, tracing back to Genesis 1:16.
In Jeremiah 4:23f, the prophet uses similar de-creation language for judgment that will come upon ancient Israel. When Israel is judged, she will revert to being “without form and void” (cf. Genesis 1:1-2). The fulfillment is real, but not literal.
In Matthew 2:15, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1, a text originally about Israel’s exodus, to Jesus, but it’s not literal – in fact, the way Matthew places the quotation indicates that Israel is now being viewed as Egypt (complete with a baby-murdering Pharaoh-like ruler in Herod), and Jesus represents all of Israel in himself.
In Matthew 12, Jesus treats Jonah’s 3 days in the belly of the great fish as a prophetic event, pointing ahead to his death and resurrection. The story of Jonah and the fish is not literally recapitulated in Jesus, but it does establish a pattern or type that Jesus fulfills. It is a prophetic sign, but not a literal one.
In 2 Samuel 7, David wants to build a house for God but God promises to build a house for David instead. But it’s obvious this is not a literal house – it’s a nation, a lineage, a house made of people. “House” is being in a figurative, not literal, sense. While there is a proximate fulfillment in Solomon when he builds the temple, ultimately the son of David who builds the house for God is Jesus. And as of Jesus comes from the “house” or dynasty/lineage that God builds for David. So while it might look 2 Samuel promises 2 houses – a literal temple built by Solomon and a royal dynasty preserved by God, in the end they resolve into one and the same house: Jesus and the church/temple he builds through his death and resurrection.
If we want to know how promises and prophecies about say, the land and temple, are fulfilled, we have to look at how the NT actually uses those categories. The promised land becomes the promised world in many NT texts, eg, Matthew 5:5 (cf. Psalm 37:11), Ephesians 6:3 (a promise to Jewish children living in the promised land is applied to Gentiles living in Ephesus), and most importantly, Romans 4:13. The land promised Abraham was not an end in itself; it was just a down payment on much bigger promise. God has promised the whole world to Abraham and his believing seed. Canaan was the first installment; God’s ultimate plan was always to bless the whole the world, every family and every nation. Thus, in the new covenant, the promised land is expanded into the promised earth, the promised nations (cf. Psalm 2, 22, etc.; Matthew 28:16-20). Even in Genesis 12, 15, and 17, it’s clear that what God has promised Abraham goes far beyond Canaan; Canaan will be a stepping stone on the way to a much greater, global/cosmic inheritance (cf. 1 Cor. 3:21-23).
Likewise, look at how the NT uses the imagery of the temple. Jesus and the church now take on the meaning and functions of the temple. The church is called God’s temple in numerous places, such as Ephesians 2:11ff and 1 Peter 2:4ff. To go looking for some rebuilt physical structure in Jerusalem in the name of “literal fulfillment” is to actually reject what the apostles explicitly taught about prophetic fulfillment. The temple God is concerned about is being built as the church grows.
The NT repeatedly takes titles that belong to old covenant Israel and applies them to the new covenant church — including the title of “Israel” in Galatians 6:16. And so we can speak of a certain kind of literalness when it comes to the church as the new Israel. The church is literally Israel according to the NT. Unbelieving Jews have been literally broken out of the covenant tree and believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11). Jesus literally took the kingdom away from unbelieving Jews and gave it to the people who embraced him as Savior (Matthew 21:43). The judgments Jesus pronounced in Matthew 24 literally came to pass before the generation then living passed away (24:34). The things signified to John in his visions took place soon after the book was written for the time was, quite literally, near (Revelation 1:1-3).
Yes, there are many straight-forward literal fulfillments of prophecy regarding Jesus, eg, he would be born in Bethlehem and betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. But the way the OT, from beginning to end, on page after page, bears witness to Jesus, is far deeper, richer, and more complex than a handful of isolated “literal” prooftexts. The Bible itself trains us to read the Bible and the apostles were not always strict literalists. They understood the OT made use of types, signs, symbols, repeating patterns, and so forth to point to the coming Messiah. And so the Messiah fulfills much more than a collection of literal prophecies; he fulfills the law, the psalms, and the prophets in their entirety. All the promises of God find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 1:20). All the prophecies of God fins their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. Sometimes that fulfillment is literal; sometimes it comes to pass in other ways.
—
“The answer to the riddle of the Old Testament is Christ. The answer to the riddle of the religion of Israel is Christ. He is the true answer to all the great problems of history and of life. Christ fulfilled the Law in its most comprehensive sense by rendering to it perfect obedience, and by satisfying all its demands on behalf of those who receive Him as Saviour and Lord. Christ fulfilled the Prophets in his accomplishment of all that they had foretold concerning Himself. Christ Fulflled both the Law and the Prophets in the exercise of all the functions of Prophet, Priest, and King, in the truest and fullest sense of these three sacred offices. The prophets, priests, and kings of the earlier age were but symbols, types, or representatives, of the One Divine Person who fulfills in the truest sense these three significant and sacred offices.”
— Roderick Campbell
—
July 4, 2026 will celebrate the 250th anniversary of America’s secession from Great Britain. Happy American Secession Day in advance!
—
Socialists want government to spend other people’s money on them, while protecting their own money from being spent on others.
—
“You have seen the amount of obedience necessary; now hear about the amount of love necessary. Do you want your wife to be obedient to you, as the Church is to Christ? Then be responsible for the same providential care of her, as Christ is for the Church. And even if it becomes necessary for you to give your life for her, yes, and even to endure and undergo suffering of any kind, do not refuse. Even though you undergo all this, you will never have done anything equal to what Christ has done. You are sacrificing yourself for someone to whom you are already joined, but He offered Himself up for one who turned her back on Him and hated Him. In the same way, then, as He honored her by putting at His feet one who turned her back on Him, who hated, rejected, and disdained Him, as He accomplished this not with threats, or violence, or terror, or anything else like that, but through His untiring love; so also you should behave toward your wife. Even if you see her belittling you, or despising and mocking you, still you will be able to subject her to yourself, through affection, kindness, and your great regard for her. There is no influence more powerful than the bond of love, especially for husband and wife. . . . Suffer anything for her sake, but never disgrace her, for Christ never did this with the Church.”
— John Chrysostom, on headship in marriage
—
“Your obligation is to love her; do your duty! Even when we don’t receive our due from others, we must always do our duty. . . . If your spouse doesn’t obey God’s law, you are not excused. A wife should respect her husband even when he shows her no love, and a husband should love his wife even when she shows him no respect. Then they will both be found to lack nothing, since each has fulfilled the commandment given to him.”
— John Chrysostom, on love and respect in marriage
—
“If a man and a woman marry in order to be companions on the journey from earth to heaven, then their union will bring great joy to themselves and to others.”
— John Chrysostom
—
The love of husband and wife is the force that welds society together. Men will take up arms and even sacrifice their lives for the sake of this love. St. Paul would not speak so earnestly about this subject without serious reason; why else would he say, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord?” Because when harmony prevails, the children are raised well, the household is kept in order, and neighbors, friends, and relatives praise the result. Great benefits, both of families and states, are thus produced. When it is otherwise, however, everything is thrown into confusion and turned upside-down.”
— John Chrysostom, on the social good of marriage
—
Pat Stedman with an excellent note on the weakness of modern women, and how catering to their victimhood, entitlement, and emotionalism destroys the social fabric:
“I know far too many men who’d like to have big families but their women won’t have more than 1 kid. Even 2 kids is a big ask, it’s “so overwhelming” for them. If they do have a second one they tend to hate their husband for it.
Before you ask, it’s not really about resources or even help. That would be understandable, and could be reframed as a timing issue. But they usually have help from in-laws or nannies / daycare. It’s also not about the man’s laziness – these guys are very involved husbands and fathers.
It’s basically just “too much” for these women emotionally to be moms, period. If they even take the plunge, they tap out at one.
We talk a lot on here about men being weak, and how they don’t live up to their forefathers’ courage. I obviously agree with this. There is a clear effeminacy and hopelessness among your average guy that didn’t exist in prior generations. Living in their shadows, we look pathetic.
But honestly, the women are in many ways even more embarrassing. Just try putting them up against their grandmothers and great grandmothers. It’s humiliating. They have never had it easier… and yet somehow they have never struggled more.
In other words, they are weak. I understand the frustration many guys have, because besides sex I don’t even know what many of them contribute anymore. Life with these women revolves entirely about their incessant, negative feelings. They are not dependable and can’t seem to carry any societal burdens.
I hate the gender war slop, and I know all women aren’t like this. There are a lot of amazing women and wives out there (including my own). But it’s gotten to a point where societal norms seem to exist entirely to cater to women’s feelings. And we wonder why things are falling apart.
Women are free to make the choices they want, and I don’t think we should ever change that. But we should not be praising women who are unwilling or incapable of living for anything besides their own gratification. These women are as big of losers as the guys who sit around playing video games, and should be called out as such.”
Zuby added this comment:
“We should get more comfortable with calling women ‘losers’ because it’s not the case that 100% of people who meet those labels are male… “
Some men are losers and deadbeats and some women are losers and deadbeats.
—
The servant-leadership model as commonly understood actually negates leadership.
I find it interesting that when feminists and egalitarians talk about women as leaders, servant-leadership never gets invoked.
It seems to apply only to men (and especially husbands).
—
The servant-leadership model is garbage. It was a concept made up by a businessman in the 1980s. It’s not the biblical view of leadership or headship.
—
I find it interesting that when feminists and egalitarians (including those who claim to be “conservative”) talk about women as leaders, “servant-leadership” never gets invoked.
The “servant-leadership” model seems to apply only to men (and especially husbands).
—
The classic confession of sin from the Book of Common Prayer opens with these words: “ALMIGHTY and most merciful Father; We have erred, and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts.” in a smartphone age, the word “devices” in this confession takes on a whole new meaning. We have indeed let our devices into our hearts and followed them far too much.
—
Parenting is a work, but for the Christian it should be a work of faith.
—
“Prayer is nothing but the promise reversed, or God’s Word turned inside out and formed into an argument, and retorted back again upon God by faith.”
— William Gurnall
—
Melchizedek is the Tom Bombadil of the Bible.
Or, to put it another way, Tom Bombadil is the Melchizedek of Middle Earth.
—
In many ways, the red pill/manosphere was necessary in the 2010s as response to the mainstreaming of feminist misandry. But today, it has become a reactionary overcorrection. “men are wonderful” counter-myth built to answer “men are trash.”
—
If “normal” pastors would do their job instead of being cowards on anything “cultural” or “political,” guys like Webbon would not get so much attention
Webbon’s popularity is more of an indictment on the failures of evangelical and Reformed pastors than anything else
Webbon fills a void that should never have been there
—
This gives new meaning to “pastoral courage”:
—
“It never seems to occur to liberals that other people are not blocks of wood—that when you set up certain incentives, they will react to them in certain ways. The result may be the opposite of what you set out to do.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
Collapsing marriage and birth rates are a sign that more people in our society are following Satan’s anti-creation mandate than God’s creation mandate.
God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Satan wants to be fruitless and divided. Sadly, our society today is following Satan’s evil plan more than God’s good plan.
—
When Psalm 128 describes the happy family gathered around the table, smart phones are conspicuously missing from the picture.
—
If a husband and wife are struggling in their marriage, they should find an older couple with a good marriage and ask them a bunch of questions. But note: Not every couple with a good marriage understands why their marriage is good. Some couples, especially couples who grew up when the world was a lot more sane, may not fully understand or comprehend why their marriage has worked well. So the trouble couple needs to find a happily married couple to mentor them who understand why their marriage is happy.
—
Grok’s summary of Rushdoony’s “Messianic Character of American Education”:
The Messianic Character of American Education (1963) by R.J. Rushdoony is a foundational critique of public (state-controlled) education in America from a Christian Reconstructionist perspective. It is one of Rushdoony’s most influential works and helped spark the modern Christian school and homeschooling movements. 
Core Thesis
Rushdoony argues that American public education is not neutral or merely academic. It functions as a messianic, religious enterprise rooted in humanistic faith. Its goal is not primarily teaching the “3 R’s” (reading, writing, arithmetic) but social engineering — remaking children and society into a new, secular, democratic order according to the vision of statist educators. 
Public schools act as the established church of the modern humanistic state, promising salvation through education: they would create better citizens, eliminate social ills, achieve equality, and usher in a kind of paradise. This replaces the Christian view of salvation through Christ with salvation through the state and its schools. 
Historical Analysis
- Pre-1830s: Education in America was largely local, parent-controlled, non-tax-supported, and explicitly Christian. It was effective and accessible.
- Horace Mann onward: The shift to state-controlled, compulsory, tax-funded education imported European (especially Prussian) models. Mann and successors viewed schools as tools for moral and social reform detached from orthodox Christianity, favoring a generic “unitarian” or moralistic piety instead.
- Rushdoony devotes chapters to key figures in the development of public education philosophy (e.g., Horace Mann, John Dewey, and others). He lets them speak in their own words to reveal presuppositions: evolutionary humanism, faith in the innate goodness of man (or the plasticity of children under expert guidance), statism, and hostility to traditional Christian authority.
The book traces how these ideas turned education into a tool for creating a socialized, egalitarian citizenry loyal to the democratic state rather than to God, family, or church.
Key Implications (per Rushdoony) - Religious conflict: Humanistic education is a rival faith to Christianity, with its own doctrines of man, sin, salvation, and eschatology.
- Authority: The state usurps parental and ecclesiastical roles in education (contra biblical norms where parents are primarily responsible).
- Outcomes: Predicts (accurately, in the eyes of many) declining academic standards, moral relativism, and cultural decay as the system follows its humanistic logic.
Style and Structure
The book is dense and academic. It consists largely of historical and philosophical analysis of educational theorists, with Rushdoony’s critique woven in from a presuppositional (Van Tillian) Christian viewpoint. It is not a light read but a thorough “excavation” of foundational ideas.
Strengths - Pioneering: One of the first detailed intellectual histories exposing the religious character of public schooling.
- Influence: Instrumental in encouraging Christians to exit public schools and build alternatives. It remains a key text in Christian education circles.
- Prescience: Many of its warnings about where statist education leads (indoctrination, loss of liberty, family erosion) resonate decades later.
Criticisms - Repetitive/Dense: Some readers find it heavy on quotes from primary sources and lighter on synthesis; it can feel like a long critique of one thinker after another.
- Polemical: Rushdoony’s uncompromising Calvinist/Reconstructionist lens (education must be explicitly Christian) will alienate secular readers or those favoring neutral public education.
- Context: Written in the early 1960s; some specifics of educational theory have evolved (e.g., more emphasis on identity politics today), but the core analysis of humanism remains relevant.
Overall Assessment
This is a seminal work for anyone interested in the philosophy of education, the history of American schooling, or Christian cultural critique. Rushdoony convincingly shows that “neutral” education is a myth — all education is religious in foundation and direction. If you accept his biblical presuppositions, it is a powerful call to reclaim education for Christian purposes. Even for non-Christians, it offers a sharp intellectual history of how public schooling became a vehicle for social reconstruction.
Highly recommended for parents, educators, historians, and those exploring alternatives to mainstream schooling. It pairs well with his shorter Intellectual Schizophrenia.
—
Whatever you think about the Iran war, it’s really important to note this is Obama’s fault. He gave Iran pallets of cash. He let them get their hands of uranium. We are here because Obama hates America and used his power to undercut American power. Trump is trying to make the best of a very bad situation created by Obama.
—
The discussions on recent years about “repealing the 19th amendment” (eg, Doug Wilson, Andrew and Rachel Wilson, Ann Coulter, etc.) are not really about taking away women’s right to vote. Everyone with common sense knows that’s going to happen anytime soon. The whole conversation is really a thought experiment at this point, but one that makes an important point: women have broken free from the patriarchy, they gone feral, and they need to be reined back in. Women who lack any kind of male headship, as most do in our culture, are doing what women typically do: become radically liberal, rejecting motherhood, giving themselves over to toxic empathy, and generally destroying society. The only way to stop civilizational wreckage is to go back to limiting the role of women in public life.
—
A note on 2 Samuel 6:
The Ark is brought to Jerusalem in a triumphal procession with singing and playing musical instruments. David dances before the Ark as it enters Jerusalem.
But keep in mind that David institutionalized the ministry of song. 1 Chronicles 15-16 especially record this, as he appoints and organizes the Levitical choirs. He does not institutionalize the ministry of dance. David’s dancing before the Ark was a one-off.
—
“God is too good to be unkind and He is too wise to be mistaken. And when we cannot trace His hand, we must trust His heart…The sweetest prayers God ever hears are the groans and sighs of those who have no hope in anything but his love.”
— Charles Spurgeon
—
Married women have a simple choice to make: you can either be a sweet submissive wife or a rebellious bitchy wife. Those are the only two options. You either fall into one category or the other.
—
“If we recover the household and its centrality and significance, it’ll restore meaning to our lives, give us a sense of our connectedness to people, and also be a speed bump to socialism. There’s a reason why Marx and Engels hated the household. You know, they spent a lot of time trying to undermine its significance and its legitimacy. And you see that all with the left.”
— C. R. Wiley
—
My endorsement of Chase Davis’ book “Offensive Christianity”:
“”Offensive Christianity” drops a bomb on the longhouse. Our churches have become beta male factories. The feminization of public life has given us wokeness and HR departments. Men have been shamed into thinking their masculinity is toxic. Effeminacy has become the norm. Our culture treats boys like defective girls and squashes masculine ambition. Meanwhile, marriage rates and birth rates continue to crater. Older men are often clueless about the obstacles young men face in thoday’s world and young men are angry, but struggle to find a way forward in the midst of a culture that scapegoats them and accuses them of having privileges they’ve never actually experienced. Pastors are all too often complicit in the problem. The result of this war on masculinity is a culture at war with God’s creational design. Our culture is filled with weak, spineless men, lacking a sense of purpose or mission. Such men are easy to control. In this timely and compelling book, Chase Davis provides a way out of the misery. This work calls men to be what God made them to be – and shows them the true glory of masculinity, revealed in the Ultimate Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. Young men and old men alike will find plenty in these pages to challenge them to grow into the kind of men God calls them to be – even without the culture’s permission. While many today will shriek in horror over Davis’ call for men to be holistically masculine and re-establish a true Christian patriarchy, our culture needs exactly these kinds of men. Charles Spurgeon once thundered, “Now is the hour for the man – where is the man for the hour?” Davis shows us how to be the man of the hour. Read this book. Implement its teaching. You won’t regret it. And you just might save civilization.”
—
Grok summarizes Oscar Wilde’s sodomy and criminality:
The Picture of Dorian Gray is Oscar Wilde’s only novel, first published in 1890 (and revised in 1891). It is a Gothic philosophical novel that explores themes of beauty, youth, hedonism, morality, and the corruption of the soul.
Plot Summary (Spoiler Warning)
Dorian Gray is a strikingly beautiful and innocent young man in Victorian London. His friend, the artist Basil Hallward, becomes obsessed with Dorian’s beauty and paints a full-length portrait of him, which turns out to be his masterpiece.
At the studio, Dorian meets the charismatic, cynical Lord Henry Wotton, who preaches a philosophy of living life for pleasure, beauty, and sensory experience while scorning morality and self-restraint. Influenced by Lord Henry’s seductive words, Dorian makes a fateful wish: that he could remain forever young and beautiful while the portrait ages and bears the marks of his sins in his place.
His wish is mysteriously granted.
Over the next two decades, Dorian plunges into a life of hedonism, debauchery, and moral corruption. He pursues every pleasure — sexual, artistic, and chemical — ruining the lives (and sometimes causing the deaths) of others while remaining physically unchanged and eternally youthful. Meanwhile, the portrait hidden in his attic grows increasingly hideous, reflecting the true state of his soul: it becomes wrinkled, scarred, and monstrous.
The novel follows Dorian’s gradual moral decay and his desperate attempts to hide his secret. The tension builds as the portrait becomes both a record of his crimes and a haunting conscience he cannot escape.
Major Themes
- The conflict between appearance and reality
- The dangers of unchecked hedonism and aestheticism
- The corrupting influence of art and influence
- Victorian hypocrisy regarding morality and pleasure
- The idea of the “double life”
Famous Line: “The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.”
The Picture of Dorian Gray is both a thrilling Gothic horror story and a sharp social satire. It remains one of the greatest and most quotable novels of the late 19th century, perfectly capturing Oscar Wilde’s brilliant wit and his tragic understanding of beauty and sin.
—
“When any generation is content to rely upon its own theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation. The powers of darkness are never idle and in combating error each generation must fight its own battle in exposing and correcting the same… A theology that does not build on the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history. A theology that relies on the past evades the demands of the present.”
— John Murray
—
“If you want a woman to bring something to the table go to IHOP.”
I heard a female influencer say this. It pretty much sums up the problem with modern dating and collapsing marriage rates. Men are (rightfully) not interested in pursuing and investing in women who are entitled and narcissistic. A woman who brings nothing but demands and expectations is not wife material. And insofar as marriage has been re-engineered so that women’s obligations have been reduced to a vanishing point and men have ever-expanding obligations, marriage is no longer a viable institution for many men.
This is why restoring God’s design for marriage is so essential. Collapsing marriage rates are THE existential crisis of our day.
—
“As the memory of the Christian consensus which gave us freedom within the biblical form increasingly is forgotten, a manipulating authoritarianism will tend to fill the vacuum.
The central message of biblical Christianity is the possibility of men and women approaching God through the work of Christ. But the message also has secondary results, among them the unusual and wide freedoms which biblical Christianity gave to countries where it supplied the consensus. When these freedoms are separated from the Christian base, however, they become a force of destruction leading to chaos. When this happens, as it has today, then, to quote Eric Hoffer (1902-), ‘When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom.’
At that point the words left or right will make no difference. They are only two roads to the same end. There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left: the results are the same.”
— Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (1976)
[HT: Joe Thacker]
—
“Without the gospel everything is useless and vain; without the gospel we are not Christians; without the gospel all riches is poverty, all wisdom folly before God; strength is weakness, and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God. But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, fellow townsmen with the saints, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom the poor are made rich, the weak strong, the fools wise, the sinner justified, the desolate comforted, the doubting sure, and slaves free. It is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe.
This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father.
It follows that every good thing we could think or desire is to be found in this same Jesus Christ alone. For, he was sold, to buy us back; made captive, to deliver us; condemned, to absolve us; he was made a curse for our blessing, a sin offering for our righteousness; marred that we may be made fair; he died for our life; so that by him fury is made gentle, wrath appeased, darkness turned into light, fear reassured, despising despised, debt canceled, labor lightened, sadness made merry, misfortune made fortunate, difficulty made easy, disorder ordered, division united, ignominy ennobled, rebellion subjected, intimidation intimidated, ambush uncovered, assaults assailed, force forced back, combat combated, war warred against, vengeance avenged, torment tormented, damnation damned, the abyss sunk into the abyss, hell transfixed, death dead, mortality made immortal. In short, mercy has swallowed up all misery, and goodness all misfortune.
For all these things which were to be the weapons of the devil in his battle against us, and the sting of death to pierce us, are turned for us into exercises which we can turn to our profit. If we are able to boast with the apostle, saying, O hell, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? it is because by the Spirit of Christ promised to the elect, we live no longer, but Christ lives in us; and we are by the same Spirit seated among those who are in heaven, so that for us the world is no more, even while our conversation [life] is in it; but we are content in all things, whether country, place, condition, clothing, meat, and all such things. And we are comforted in tribulation, joyful in sorrow, glorying under vituperation, abounding in poverty, warmed in our nakedness, patient amongst evils, living in death.”
— from John Calvin’s preface to Pierre Robert Olivétan’s French translation of the New Testament (1534)
—
“”Happy wife, happy life” puts mama at the center of the family. It creates a de facto matriarchy.”
— David Bostrom
—
This description of the Eastern Orthodox church as an apolitical church unconcerned with questions of masculinity/femininity, politics, contemporary culture war issues, etc., sounds very attractive from a certain perspective. And yet it’s just more pietism — the attempt to escape having to apply the Bible to the world in which we live. Ancient pietism can’t help us any more than contemporary pietism. EO mysticism and biblical minimalism is not going to solve our cultural problems. This is why Orthodoxy has not built great nations. Do the young rightwing men supposedly flocking to EO know this?
—
“When we build, let us think that we build forever.”
— John Ruskin
—
Grok summarizing Buchanan’s “Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”:
“Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War’: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World” (2008) is Patrick J. Buchanan’s provocative revisionist history of the two World Wars. Buchanan, a conservative commentator and former presidential candidate, argues that British statesmen—particularly Winston Churchill—made catastrophic blunders that turned avoidable European conflicts into global catastrophes, destroying the British Empire, empowering the Soviet Union, and diminishing Western civilization. 
Core Thesis
Buchanan contends that the World Wars were not inevitable but resulted from poor British diplomacy and decisions driven by emotion, encirclement policies, and misplaced guarantees rather than vital national interests. He does not deny Nazi evil or the Holocaust but questions whether confronting Germany through total war was wise or necessary, given the enormous human and civilizational costs (tens of millions dead, rise of Communism, decolonization, and loss of European dominance). 
Key arguments include:
- World War I: Britain (via Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and others) unnecessarily entangled itself with France and Russia through the Entente Cordiale, fostering Germanophobia. Buchanan portrays pre-1914 Imperial Germany as relatively peaceful and the least militaristic great power, arguing that British intervention turned a continental war into a world war. Without it, he speculates, no Bolshevik Revolution, no harsh Versailles Treaty, and no Hitler.
- Interwar Period and World War II: The Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany and sowed seeds for revanchism. Buchanan criticizes Britain’s post-WWI policies, including severing the Anglo-Japanese alliance under U.S. pressure. He sees the 1939 guarantee to Poland as the ultimate folly—a bluff Britain couldn’t back without Soviet or American help, triggering war over issues like Danzig that could have been negotiated. Churchill is portrayed as a bellicose figure whose stubbornness prolonged conflict and led to empire’s ruin.
- Hitler’s Role: Buchanan suggests Hitler sought limited aims in the East (Lebensraum) and had no initial desire for war with Britain or the West. He argues a cold peace or limited conflict might have contained Nazism without destroying the West’s position relative to rising non-Western powers.
- Broader Consequences: The wars exhausted Europe, accelerated decolonization, enabled Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and shifted global power to the U.S. and USSR. Buchanan draws parallels to later U.S. interventions (e.g., Iraq).
The book draws on revisionist historians like A.J.P. Taylor, Correlli Barnett, and John Charmley, using extensive quotes and counterfactuals.
Strengths - Readable and Thorough: At around 500+ pages, it synthesizes a vast amount of diplomatic history with a clear narrative. Buchanan excels at highlighting inconsistencies in Allied policy and the high costs of “victory.”
- Provocative Questions: It forces readers to confront trade-offs: Was preserving Polish sovereignty worth the destruction of the British Empire and the enslavement of Eastern Europe by Stalin? It challenges the “Good War” mythology by emphasizing outcomes over intentions.
- Relevance: Echoes isolationist or realist foreign policy debates, cautioning against overextension and ideological crusades.
Criticisms - Selective and Revisionist: Critics accuse Buchanan of cherry-picking quotes, downplaying German aggression (e.g., the Schlieffen Plan, invasions, and Nazi ideology), and minimizing moral dimensions. His portrayal of Germany as a victim of encirclement is seen as overly sympathetic.
- Counterfactual Overreach: Many historians argue the wars’ roots were deeper (nationalism, militarism, alliances) and that appeasement or non-intervention risked worse outcomes, like a Nazi-dominated continent. Buchanan’s thesis is often labeled as isolationist apologetics.
- Tone and Omissions: It can feel like special pleading for a “limited” European war, ignoring the ideological threat of Nazism and the Holocaust’s connection to expansionist war. Reviews note it debuted on bestseller lists but faced widespread scholarly pushback.
Overall, The Unnecessary War is a bold, contrarian work that will appeal to those skeptical of endless foreign entanglements and mainstream WWII narratives. It is less convincing as definitive history than as a cautionary tale about hubris in foreign policy. Whether one agrees with Buchanan’s conclusions or not, it prompts valuable reflection on how great powers decline through overreach. Recommended for readers interested in 20th-century diplomacy, but best read alongside mainstream accounts for balance.
—
Thomas Weinandy or Tom Smail (or maybe both) make the argument that the Nicene Creed would have done better (and perhaps kept the church united on the issue) had it been modified to read “from the Father through the Son” in order to distinguish the ways in which the twofold procession of the Spirit works.
The procession of the Spirit from the Father is not identical to the procession of the Spirit from the Son.
The use of “through the Son” rather than “and the Son” better matches the flow and pattern of redemptive history – the Father gives the Spirit to the Son who in turn pours out the Spirit on the church.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son and through the Son to us.
Of course, there’s also a sense in which the Spirit is given by the Son to the Father since the Spirit is the bond of love Father and Son share – and by the Spirit we are brought into that bond of love in the Triune family. But the filioque fails to distinguish the distinct way sin which the Father and Son possess and relate to the Spirit.
Rushdoony points out that EO’s rejection of the filioque leads to irrational mysticism because its cuts the Spirit off from the Word rather than tethering the work of the Spirit to the Word. The Christian has a very different relationship with the Son and the Spirit rather than relating to the Spirit through the Son (the Word incarnate, testified to by the Word written).
—
“Spread your cloak over the person who has fallen into sin, each time, and shield him.”
— Isaac the Syrian
—
What does Thomas Massie’s defeat in the Republican primary mean?
Does it mean AIPAC really runs things? Does it mean Jews still have more influence than the New Christian Right (NXR)?
Is it the revenge of the Epstein class?
Does it mean Trump is still ascendant, powerful enough to even depose once-popular Republicans in Congress who refuse to play along with his agenda? Is Trump now in the neo-con camp?
Does it mean that voters finally got tired of Massie’s quasi-libertarian grandstanding?
I don’t know that it really means any of these things. I like Massie. I like that he has been a principled conservative on economic and social matters. I like that he opposed the COVID regime and wants to protect Americans from government surveillance. I like that he seems to be a man of integrity and decency — a rarity in DC. I like that he got the Epstein files released. I like that he was not a “yes man” and seemed to have deep convictions. But I also think some of his political decisions were very, very foolish — of the “head buried in the sand” variety, that refuse to deal with the world as it actually exists — and that set him up for this fall. Of course, given the kind of money that was pouring into his opponent’s campaign, it may be that this was simply a matter of the Trump/Israeli nexus buying a victory to eliminate a rival.
As noted here before, based on what I know, I am not a fan of the current war — though I am also not dogmatic about it because I realize it’s a complex issue and there is a lot our leaders know about the geo-political situation that I do not know. I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear warhead, but I also don’t think it’s fundamentally our responsibility to stop it. I’m sympathetic with Massie on the Iran war. Like Massie I don’t like tariffs as a policy, though I could be ok with them as negotiating tactics to get us markets that are ultimately more fair and free. I have a lot of alignment with what Massie represents. But I also think you have to play the game you’re actually in, and at the end of the day, Massie wanted to play a different game than the one actually going on. That’s why he lost.
—
This Sunday is Pentecost, a celebration and commemoration of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, an event recorded in Acts 2. It’s a great day to wear red to church.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins. He rose again on the 3rd day. On the 40th day, he ascended into heaven. On the 50th day, he poured out the Holy Spirit from on high. That’s what ascended kings do – they give gifts to their people – and the ascended Christ gave his church the gift of all gifts, the ultimate gift.
The Holy Spirit is God dwelling with us and in us, uniting us to Jesus the Son. The Holy Spirit is God with us, since where the Spirit is present, the Father and Son are present as well. The Spirit is the love of God poured into our hearts. As the shared love and bond of the Father and the Son, the Spirit bonds us to the Triune God.
Note a couple of things about the work of the Holy Spirit pertaining to worship:
First, Jesus says in John 16:14 that when the Holy Spirit comes, he will bring glory to him. The Holy Spirit glorifies the Son. His ministry shines light on Jesus. His ministry exalts Jesus. His ministry bears witness to the Son. The Holy Spirit never draws attention to himself; he always points to Jesus (and of course Jesus points us to the Father).
Second, in Ephesians 5:18-19, Paul says when we are filled with the Spirit, we sing psalms hymns and spiritual songs. The mark of the Spirit’s presence is musical. We sing in the Spirit. The Spirit harmonizes our voices in a sacrifice of musical praise. The Spirit makes us sing. The Spirit is the music of God, even Jesus is the word of God. The Spirit brings the joy of God to us, and what better way to express joy than in song? The Spirit filled church is a singing church.
So how does the Holy Spirit bring glory to Jesus? Putting John 16 and Ephesians 5 together, at least one key way the Spirit exalts Jesus is through the church’s liturgical music. The Spirit fulfills the promise that he will glorify Jesus by inspiring the church to offer him psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. This makes sense. Music is glorious. It is sonic glory, glory in audible form. Song is glorified speech. The Spirit carries out his ministry of glorifying Jesus most especially in the church’s is gathered worship, as we sing his praises in the power of the Spirit. The Spirit leads us to offer a sacrifice of musical praise to the glory of the Son.
This Sunday, as Christians celebrate Pentecost, the Spirit will carry out his mission of glorifying the Son as we sing praises to God.
—
When David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem — the Ark’s “triumphal entry” — it was accompanied by an explosion of musical praise (2 Samuel 6). While there was certainly music in the Mosaic era (eg, the songs of Moses and Miriam), this burst of musical praise in the Davidic era is a new development. The Lord is being enthroned in Zion, so worship is being elevated. The Ark’s exaltation requires an exalted form of praise. It’s not surprising the man who brought the Ark to its rightful home also composed the bulk of the Psalms.
After settling the Ark, David goes on to organize the Levites into a choir with instrumental accompaniment in order to offer a sacrifice of musical praise before the Ark. If worship in the Mosaic era centered around bloody animal sacrifices, worship in the Davidic era is primarily centered around musical sacrifices. We see this beginning in 2 Samuel 6, and much of 1 Chronicles is taken up with David’s liturgical/musical reforms. While there was no regular singing prescribed for the tabernacle of Moses, David’s reforms mature and glorify Israel’s liturgy. David puts the Ark in a tent (known as the “tent of David”) and it becomes a place where the predominant form of worship is musical sacrifice. During David’s reign, animal offerings continued to be made at the Moasic tabernacle in Gibeon, while musical offerings are made at the tent of David on Zion.
When Solomon builds the temple, Gibeon and Zion are brought back together at Moriah (and Moriah incorporates the meaning of Zion even though the Temple Mount is not literally Zion). Animal sacrifice and musical sacrifice are united. But the era of David’s tent proved to be an important one, in terms of biblical typology. It’s an oasis of new covenant-type worship under the aegis of the old covenant. It’s a temporary in-breaking of the future (in that it uses primarily new covenant worship forms) during the old covenant era.
There are several things worth noting here, as we consider the implications of all of this for the new covenant church.
First, new covenant worship should be filled with music as a sign that the kingdom has come. Music accompanied the Ark as it ascended to Zion in 2 Samuel 6. Likewise, when Jesus ascends to the heavenly Zion, to be enthroned at his Father’s right hand, in Revelation 5, heaven bursts forth with new songs. Yes, there was singing in heaven before Jesus’ ascent, as we see in Revelation 4, just as there was singing in the old covenant before David. But the ascent of the Lion-Lamb God-man to the Father’s right hand means a new explosion of glorious hymns in the heavenly sanctuary. This is the pattern: When the kingdom enters a new phase of glory, the Lord is exalted upon the praises of his people in a new way. The Lord is lifted up on a sonic throne, a throne of musical praise. The ascension of the ark of to Zion, surrounded by new songs, prefigures the ascension of Jesus to heaven, with new songs breaking out.
The arrival of the new covenant means the end of animal sacrifices. But the sacrificial offerings of musical praise, really initiated by David once the Ark was enthroned in the tent he built, continue. The apostles viewed the new covenant church as the restoration and fulfillment of David’s tent (cf. Acts 15:15ff, drawing from the prophecy in Amos 9). Liturgically, this means new covenant worship should have lots of singing, accompanied by instruments, just like the tent of David had. New covenant worship should be an explosion of musical sacrifice each Lord’s Day. To be a Christian is to be a worshipper, and to be a worshipper means to be a singer. We are a royal priesthood, and just as King David organized singers around the Ark, in new covenant worship, we are singing priests arrayed around the heavenly throne, offering songs to our King, Great David’s Greater Son. Jesus leads our praise (Hebrews 2:11) and receives our praise (Revelation 5). We join with Jesus in singing God’s praises and we exalt Jesus on a throne of musical praise. The new covenant worship assembly is the antitype of the Levitical choir David set up.
The other interesting thing to note is that before David brought the Ark to Zion, it was kept at the home of a Gentile, Obed-Edom the Gittite. This same Obed-Edom apparently came with the Ark as it processed to Zion. He had done such a good job as guardian and caretaker of the Ark, he was incorporated into the tribe of Levi and became an honorary Levite. In 1 Chronicles 15:16-18, we learn Obed-Edom was among those appointed by David “to be the singers accompanied by instruments of music, stringed instruments, harps, and cymbals, by raising the voice with resounding joy.” This is why James makes an appeal to Amos 9 in Acts 15, to settle the controversy of Gentile inclusion in the new Israel. When the a multitude of worshippers from a multitude of nations assemble to sing to Jesus each Lord’s Day, it is proof that the kingdom has come and David’s fallen tent has been restored. We are all Obed-Edoms, brought to Zion to guard the Ark and worship before the Lord’s throne.
—
“When freedom destroys order, the yearning for order will destroy freedom.”
— Eric Hoffer
—
“What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!”
— John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)
—
“One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend.”
— Stanley Hauerwas
—
“If we continue the trend to a collectivist economy, to a society controlled by government, we shall lose not only our economic advantages but also our political freedom.”
— Milton Friedman
—
“Peoples of European descent are not only in relative decline, but in absolute decline. They are aging, dying, disappearing. This is the existential crisis of the West.”
— Pat Buchanan, Suicide of a Superpower
—
When country music gets political, it’s usually pretty theonomic, including calling for public executions of sorcerers/witches/drug dealers, rapists, and so forth.
https://youtu.be/CQ74BwEwOJY?si=H1w7MQBmzU0q1CVx
—
From 11/5/24:
I appreciate much of the theonomic project (eg, some excellent exegetical work on the general equity of Torah has been done by theonomists). But theonomists need to recognize at least a couple things:
- Nature is a legitimate biblical category. In other words, even on biblicist principles, we are required to learn from nature, that is, God’s creational design.
- The Torah of Moses was never intended to be a complete legal system even for ancient Israel. Thus, using Torah as model law code will not eliminate the need for wisdom. For example, while Torah deals with fire pollution, it did not specifically address the much more common issue of water pollution. Another example: when Solomon becomes king, he is immediately confronted with a situation which Torah does not address (two moms fighting over one baby), so he has to solve the problem and make a judgment based on wisdom (eg, what he knows about maternal nature).
—
From 10/26/25:
Christian politics will default to some kind of “general equity theonomy” – it pretty much always has in the past. I think a lot of Christians today have accidentally become fairly theonomic, without having ever heard of “theonomy,” just out of instinct (and because it’s the most obvious alternative to progressive craziness). I was just pointing out that Baird’s short book does not try to answer the question.
Christians would get to a general equity theonomy position a lot faster if pastors would actually preach OT law, showing the wisdom of its principles. Vern Poythress’ book The Shadow of Christ in a law of Moses is helpful, along with all the classic sources. Constantine, Theodosius, Alfred, Calvin’s Geneva, Gladstone, the New England Puritans, etc. all used principles from Torah to shape policy and penology, so becoming acquainted with history is also helpful.
I did appreciate Baird’s emphasis on prudence. Following Althusius, he points out that a Christian magistrate might have to permit for a season what he cannot prevent. Even if we have an ideal Christian republic in mind, politics remains “the art of the possible,” and much of that ideal will be unrealized until the people are primed for it. The most dedicated theonomic magistrate in America today still has to work within the constraints of the system and character deficiencies of the people he governs.
—
“The saying ‘happy wife, happy life’ may have some validity, but the lesser-known saying ‘anxious wife, miserable life’ has research-approved validation. … The more neurotic the spouse is, the less happy the relationship — but women’s neuroticism seems to carry more weight in the overall marital happiness equation.”
— Lindsay Weisner
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-venn-diagram-life/202410/love-marriage-and-anxiety
—
“We’re raising whole generations who regard facts as optional. They are being taught that it’s important to have views, they are not being taught that it’s important to know what you are talking about.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“Now then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word preached unto us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein, we have reason to confess that he has shown himself generous to us . . . but for all that [love shown to us by God in the covenant administration of Word and Sacrament], in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of Christ, yet if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut us off again, and reserve a final number to himself.”
— John Calvin, from Sermons on Deuteronomy
—
“That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life.”
— John Calvin, from Antidote to the Council of Trent
—
Faith seeks Christ where he has promised to be found. Faith receives Christ in his appointed means. Faith unites us to Christ by the work of the Spirit in these ordinances. The means of grace are objective instruments through which salvation is offered; faith is the subjective instrument by which that salvation becomes ours.
—
From 9/5/24:
The aftermath of Dobbs has shown the soft underbelly that characterized the American pro-life movement all along.
The reason the pro-life movement has largely failed is because it was not sufficiently pro-law, as in pro-God’s law.
The pro-life movement has been more humanistic than theonomic.
To put it another way, it tried to be pro-life without rooting that in a pro-law worldview.
(I’m using “theonomic” and “God’s law” here in the broadest senses, not to refer to a particular heremeneutical program for inserting Torah into modern law codes.)
The pro-life movement, in both evangelical and Roman Catholic manifestations, has largely been sentimental and squishy, rather than principled and consistent.
It’s been about pictures of cuddly babies more than the recognition that abortion is a violation of God‘s holy law.
I get the appeal of cuddly babies, and we should obviously want to protect them for who they are.
But the sanctity of God‘s law is really the issue more than the so-called sanctity of life.
It is only the sanctity God’s law that secures the sanctity of human life.
The holiness of God’s law is more paramount than the cuteness of the babies.
Unfortunately evangelicals seem more concerned with cuteness than holiness and so the pro-life movement has never been as forthright and hard edged as it needed to be.
A litmus test of this, of course, is whether or not pro-lifers have believed that abortion, as an act of murder, should be criminalized and punished as such, even for the woman who procures an abortion (extenuating circumstances, excepted of course).
Willingness to call a woman who procures an abortion a criminal, rather than a second victim, is the real bellwether here.
It’s a test of what drives us – humanism or holiness?
The inability of so many pro-lifers to insist that abortion be fully and completely criminalized calls into question why they opposed abortion in the first place.
Is their real concern obedience to God? Or is something else driving this?
Has sentiment for mother or baby become the issue more than doing what God requires?
1/2
Ironically, the one person in the public eye who was not squishy about pro-life, at least momentarily, was Donald Trump.
For a brief moment in 2016, when he first said that he would be an anti-abortion president, he said abortion should be criminalized for everyone involved. He was just following the obvious logic of the position. If abortion is murder, those who perform or procure abortions are murderers.
But a bunch of squishy, sentimental pro-life leaders quickly rushed in to explain to Trump, “No we don’t do it that way, the woman is never guilty.” Trump still managed to get the right justices appointed to get Roe overturned and that was a great milestone.
But it’s obvious now that the pro-life movement was never really anything all that serious. Our sentimental squishiness continues to be our Achilles heel in the church today.
There is no will, no determination, no drive, no courage to do what really must be done, on one front after another.
I have no doubt the way most evangelical churches worship (eg, overly emotionalized music) and the sermons most evangelicals hear (usually very soft, feel good messages) have a lot to do with why the pro-life movement has turned out to be so insipid.
Ironically, a church that regularly sang about “dashing the children of the wicked against a rock” (Psalm 137) or that sang “the righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked” (Psalm 58) would produce a much more compassionate, humane, and holistic pro-life movement than what we have today.
There are some evangelicals (mainly the “never Trumpers”) who want to blame Trump for the failure of the pro-life cause since the Dodds decision. But (besides being ungrateful) that gets things backwards. Trump gave pro-lifers their only really significant victory in 50 years. It was the squishiness of the pro-life movement itself that made it impossible to capitalize on that victory in most places, not Trump. The pro-life movement never had a comprehensive vision for social life rooted in God’s law.
None of this denies that real good has been good by the pro-life movement at the street level. Babies have been saved. Women in crisis have been helped. Much good has been done. But the movement as a whole has failed because of the kind of church culture it’s rooted in.
2/2
From 9/6/24:
Quick follow up on my thread from yesterday about the squishiness of the pro-life movement:
The pro-life framing (rather than pro-God’s law framing) has created a host of other issues for us.
For example, pro-life messaging ends up conflicting with biblical (and politically conservative/traditional) emphasis on the justice of the death penalty for certain crimes, the right to self-defense (eg, the second amendment), and so on. It has opened the door to the statist/socialist “comprehensive pro-life” non-sense that claims we cannot be consistently pro-life unless we are willing to foot the bill for everything someone else’s child will need for the next 20 years. This is why we must stress personal responsibility: if you create a child, you must take full responsibility for that child. Yes, charity is available. But if society is forced to subsidize your bad choices, then more and more people will make bad choices.
This is why I say we need to frame the issue in “theonomic” rather than humanistic (“pro-life”) terms.
—
“The minimum wage law is very cleverly misnamed. The real minimum wage is zero–and that is what many inexperienced and low-skilled people receive as a result of legislation that makes it illegal to pay them what they are currently worth to an employer.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
“The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament in the second century, B.C., substituted pharmakeia for the Hebrew word for sorceress in Exodus 22:18, from which we derive our word “pharmacy.” The witch of the classical world was an expert in potions. More accurately, he or she was known as a poisoner. Throughout the Middle Ages, men were fearful of suspected witches, in part because of this reputation. They could be dangerous.”
— Gary North, Unholy Spirits, p. 66
—
“The worst of all public dangers is the committee of public safety.”
–C.S. Lewis
One might add, in this post-COVID era, that the commitee of public health is just as dangerous.
—
At this point, my politics is pretty much summed up by Charlie Daniels’ song “Simple Man.”
—
If you really want to understand the song “Sweet Home Alabama” and the Ronnie Van Zant/Neil Young feud, you have to listen to the Drive By Truckers’ song, “Ronnie and Neil.” I don’t care for the language the song uses, but it tells the story pretty well (and in doing so, sheds life on the South of that era).
—
We’re at an impasse: Most everyone relies on data centers for their email, social media. AI use, etc. But no one wants to live close to a data center.
We want cheap energy – it’s the key to prosperity – but everything it takes to get cheap energy is controversial in this era of “green politics.”
No one wants Iran to have a nuke – but doing what needs to be done to keep them from getting one is highly controversial. Who really wants to fight a long term war in that region of the war to actually get the uranium out of Iran?
Most people can see the federal deficit is a problem, but no one is willing to make the sacrifices it would take to fix it and any politician who tried to do so would be unelectable. It’s an unsolveable problem at this point.
—
A note on identity politics, particularly racial identity politics:
I am opposed to identity politics as typically understood.
When Tucker Carlson expresses opposition to identity politics, he usually points to the problems with collectivism and group-based judgments. I agree with that critique. While paying attention to the identity groups someone belongs to (race, sex, ethnicity, etc.) is important (pattern recognition is a form of wisdom), and can perhaps help us for certain pre-judgments about a person, we cannot come to a full and accurate evaluation of a person without considering their individual convictions, character, worldview, etc. We cannot hold an individual responsible for everything a group to which he belongs may have done. God judges people one by one – we go to heaven or hell as individuals. We should imitate that, judging people according to their own beliefs and actions, not merely the larger group to which they belong.
But I would add to this another layer of critique of identity politics and it’s this fact: no one actually practices identity politics consistently. Blacks do not celebrate Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell just because they are black. Instead, many blacks view them as traitors. Feminists/the women’s movement will attack conservative women, stay-at-home wives and mothers, etc.
Many on the far right advocate for a white identity politics. But in 2026, what does this mean? White Americans are pretty evenly split between liberals/progressives and conservatives. I do not feel some deep affinity for or solidarity with other whites just because we happen to share skin color. I would vote for a black conservative over a white progressive. White liberals have done more to wreck our culture than anyone.
I believe in preserving the best of Western civilization, which was created by whites. But in order to do that we have to build a political coalition that can gain and wield power. Alienating, say, conservative Hispanics, blacks, and Asians, is counter-productive to that end.
—
Revelation tells the story of two women, two cities, and two temples: the harlot vs the bride, the earthly Jerusalem vs the heavenly Jerusalem, the old covenant temple (which was about to be destroyed when the book was written) vs the new covenant temple of the church.
Revelation teaches the church how to deal with a Satanic religion (Judaism) and Satanic state (Rome).
—
I’m always a little suspicious of celebrity conversions. Pastor Kam pointed out in his 5/17/26 sermon that Simon Magnus was the first “celebrity Christian.” And it did not turn out well.
This does not mean celebrities cannot be converted. But it does mean that celebrities, like any convert, need time to prove themselves before being put on a pedestal of some sort. Simon apostatized just as fast as he converted.
—
Ecclesiastes (like Psalm 90) teaches us to live life from the end to the beginning – to live life backwards. Start with the one absolutely certain fact – that you are going to die – and reverse engineer your life from that fact. In light of the fact that your life is a vapor, a puff of smoke, what should do in the present moment with the time that you have?
—
Married couples with kids: Someday you will have an “empty nest.” Make sure you are prepared for it. Continue to cultivate your marriage relationship during the child-rearing years.
—
I’m pretty critical of the clergy class in general. Most pastors today are gutless cowards.
At the same time, I don’t think we can fix our problems apart from the church, and that means pastors have to play a role.
—
“The tragic version of rugged individualism is in the presumptive ‘right’ of individuals to do as they please, as if there were no God, no legitimate government, no community, no neighbors, and no posterity. This is most frequently understood as the right to do whatever one pleases with one’s property. One’s property, according to this formulation, is one’s own absolutely.
Rugged individualism of this kind has cost us dearly in lost topsoil, in destroyed forests, in the increasing toxicity of the world, and in annihilated species. When property rights become absolute they are invariably destructive, for then they are used to justify not only the abuse of things of permanent value for the temporary benefit of legal owners, but also the appropriation and abuse of things to which the would-be owners have no rights at all, but which can belong only to the public or to the entire community of living creatures: the atmosphere, the water cycle, wilderness, ecosystems, the possibility of life.
This is made worse when great corporations are granted the status of ‘persons,’ who then can also become rugged individuals, insisting on their right to do whatever they please with their property. Because of the overwhelming wealth and influence of these ‘persons,’ the elected representatives and defenders of ‘the people of the United States’ become instead the representatives and defenders of the corporations.
It has become ever more clear that this sort of individualism has never proposed or implied any protection of the rights of all individuals, but instead has promoted a ferocious scramble in which more and more of the rights of ‘the people’ have been gathered into the ownership of fewer and fewer of the greediest and most powerful ‘persons’…
‘Every man for himself’ is a doctrine for a feeding frenzy or for a panic in a burning nightclub, appropriate for sharks or hogs or perhaps a cascade of lemmings. A society wishing to endure must speak the language of caretaking, faith-keeping, kindness, neighborliness, and peace. That language is another precious resource that cannot be ‘privatized.’”
— Wendell Berry, “Rugged Individualism”
The answer to this kind of extreme individualism is not statism or collectivism, which leads to just as many disasters. The answer is virtue; the individual must have a sense of his obligation to others, including fellow citizens in the present and future generations yet born. To put it another way, the solution is covenantal.
—
A good overview of sexual polarity in marriage:
A good overview of the problems with servant-leadership:
—
I want my wife to be happy. That’s precisely why I reject the mantra, “happy wife, happy life.”
A man who simply placates his wife, rather than leading her, will never make her happy. A man who avoids all conflict with his wife to “keep the peace” will find that he does not really have a peaceful home. What his home actually has is a void of leadership. Like a ship without a captain tossed to and fro on the sea, a home with an abdicating man can never be stable.
“Happy wife, happy life” is analogous to the indulgent parent who gives the two year old whatever he wants every time he throws a temper tantrum. Momentary peace comes at the price of long term chaos.
“Happy wife, happy life” always backfires. It does not lead to genuine happiness. For a man to make his wife deeply happy in the long run, he may have to risk making her unhappy in the short run.
ADDENDUM: Griff Lasta explains it’s actually the reverse: “”Happy life, happy wife.” It’s the man who is unapologetically all in on the life that God has called him to, that ends up producing a “happy wife.””
—
Traditions are experiments that worked. Traditional patterns of life were preserved across centuries because they solved life’s basic problems better than alternatives.
—
“There is nothing more admirable than when two people who see eye to eye keep house as man and wife, confounding their enemies and delighting their friends.”
–Homer, The Odyssey
—
The civil right act, which is our de facto constitution at this point, is built on race-realism. What do those who claim race is merely a social construct do with the civil rights act? If there is only one race – the human race – there is no basis for the civil rights legislation, and our entire legal framework is built on a myth.
—
“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran, they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation, I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing — we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon, that’s all.”
— President Trump
—
John Calvin on Jesus blessing the infants brought to him:
“To exclude from the grace of redemption those who are of that age would be too cruel; and therefore it is not without reason that we employ this passage as a shield against the Anabaptists. They refuse baptism to infants, because infants are incapable of understanding that mystery which is denoted by it. We, on the other hand, maintain that, since baptism is the pledge and figure of the forgiveness of sins, and likewise of adoption by God, it ought not to be denied to infants, whom God adopts and washes with the blood of his Son. Their objection, that repentance and newness of life are also denoted by it, is easily answered. Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God, according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time. Again, when they argue that there is no other way in which we are reconciled to God, and become heirs of adoption, than by faith, we admit this as to adults, but, with respect to infants, this passage demonstrates it to be false. Certainly, the laying on of hands was not a trifling or empty sign, and the prayers of Christ were not idly wasted in air. But he could not present the infants solemnly to God without giving them purity. And for what did he pray for them, but that they might be received into the number of the children of God? Hence it follows, that they were renewed by the Spirit to the hope of salvation. In short, by embracing them, he testified that they were reckoned by Christ among his flock. And if they were partakers of the spiritual gifts, which are represented by Baptism, it is unreasonable that they should be deprived of the outward sign. But it is presumption and sacrilege to drive far from the fold of Christ those whom he cherishes in his bosom, and to shut the door, and exclude as strangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden to come to him.”
—
Free market capitalism is the only economic system that does not rely on coercion and theft.
Free market capitalism is the only economic system that rewards service, creativity, and diligence.
—
“What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people—like themselves—need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.”
— Thomas Sowell
—
Bonhoeffer does not map neatly onto the American conservative/liberal spectrum. His theology was generally confessional, but with a horrific neo-orthodox spin at points (eg, the virgin birth). He conceded too much to historical criticism in terms of his epistemology and his doctrine of Scripture was not fully orthodox. He came from a privileged background, preferred monarchy over democracy in some writings, opposed abortion (calling it “nothing but murder”), rejected certain psychoanalytic/therapeutic trends, and rejected radical liberalism. He critiqued shallow American Protestant liberalism as overly pragmatic and lacking theological and moral depth. 
Both sides “claim” him, but he fits much better with conservatism than progressivism. He certainly taught a conservative sex ethic and lived a conservative life. When he was executed, he was engaged to be married. His own writings indicate he died a virgin.
Evangelicals/conservatives (e.g., Eric Metaxas) emphasize his costly discipleship and anti-totalitarianism against perceived left-wing threats.
—
A summary of Bonhoeffer’s doctrine of Scripture:
Bonhoeffer held a neo-orthodox (dialectical) view of Scripture, heavily influenced by Karl Barth. He regarded the Bible as both fully human (historically conditioned, fallible in empirical/scientific details) and the vehicle for God’s Word (where Christ encounters the reader existentially through faith). 
Core Elements
- Human word and God’s word: The Bible is a thoroughly historical, human book—subject to criticism, containing scientific naïveté, legends, and inaccuracies (e.g., in the creation account or details of Jesus’ life). Yet it becomes God’s Word when God speaks through it, claiming the reader and pointing to Christ. Bonhoeffer wrote that the human word “does not cease being temporally bound and transient by becoming God’s word.” We encounter God only in its “unstable and fragile” histories and language.
- Rejection of verbal inspiration and inerrancy: He explicitly criticized “verbal inspiration” as inadequate, equating it sometimes with denying the living presence of the risen Christ. The Bible is “a book like other books” in the secular sphere; historical criticism must “run its course.” One navigates it like crossing a river on breaking ice floes—moving across the whole text rather than standing rigidly on one (potentially flawed) part.
- Christ-centered and existential: Scripture’s unity and truth center on the living Christ (the “risen one” who encounters us). Its authority is not in timeless propositions, empirical accuracy, or scientific reports, but in its witness to Christ and call to obedience today. Bonhoeffer stressed reading it meditatively, prayerfully, and in community (e.g., his love for the Psalms as drawing one into Christ’s presence).
- Practical high regard: Despite his theoretical openness to criticism, Bonhoeffer treated Scripture with great seriousness in practice. He meditated on it daily (especially in prison), preached it as sufficient and true for salvation and discipleship, and called for costly obedience to it (as in The Cost of Discipleship, with its emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount). He saw it as nourishing, self-sufficient (needing no “decoration”), and demanding time and reflection.
Context and Nuances
This stance distanced him from both 19th-century liberal theology (which reduced Scripture to human religious experience) and fundamentalist verbal plenary inspiration/inerrancy. He accepted higher criticism but subordinated it to theological/existential encounter. His views were consistent across his career, though his personal engagement with the Bible fluctuated later in prison as he explored “religionless Christianity.”
Evangelicals sometimes highlight his devotional use and calls to radical discipleship, while critics (from both conservative and more radical sides) note the non-historical, non-inerrant framework. Bonhoeffer’s approach fits a Lutheran emphasis on God revealed in weakness (theology of the cross), where Scripture’s human frailty does not negate its divine authority but exemplifies how God works.
In summary, for Bonhoeffer, Scripture is not a flawless propositional handbook but the place where the living Christ confronts and claims us—fallible as history, infallible as divine address when heard in faith.
—
https://twitter.com/JoelWebbon/status/2054191780745109562/video/1?s=46
https://twitter.com/FuentesUpdates/status/2054242348821864776/video/1?s=46
Ohio is a pretty purple state, but leans slightly Republican of late. Vivek Ramaswamy won the Republican primary easily. With Fuentes, Webbon and other NXR guys saying “don’t vote for Vivek,” it’s possible that governor’s race will be a telling indicator of how much pull the NXR has in the real world of electoral politics.
I don’t like Vikek either, but I think the “accelerationist” approach is foolish. Vivek has to be weighed against realistic alternatives. Further, Webbon’s “get out!” messaging to immigrants is just not going to work. We cannot even deport all the illegals who just got here in the last 6 years; the idea that we can deport millions who have been here much longer and have legal status (however they got it) is just not realistic.
—
The ascension of Jesus is worthy of celebration. It is Christ’s enthronement. Just as we saw in last week’s sermon when David celebrated the ascension of the ark to Zion, we should celebrate the ascension of Jesus into heaven. Jesus said it is good for him to go away because then the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will come (John 16:7); the ascension leads to Pentecost. The ascension is Jesus’ exaltation to the Father’s right hand, above every principality and power, so that everything is put under his feet (Ephesians 1:20-23). The ascension means all authority in heaven and earth has been given to him (Matthew 28:16-20). The ascension means Christ is now in the heavenly sanctuary, where he lives to make intercession for us (Hebrews 7:25). The ascension means that heaven has been opened to us, not just as a place to go when we die, but a place we can enter right now, in prayer and worship (Hebrews 10:19-25). When Jesus ascended, heaven burst forth into song (Revelation 4-5).
—
How did Bonhoeffer live his life?
He was engaged to Maria von Wedemeyer (18 years his junior) in January 1943, shortly before his arrest by the Gestapo. Their engagement lasted until his execution in April 1945, but they never married, and their physical contact was extremely limited—accounts describe only a single chaste kiss on the cheek during a prison visit, in the presence of a guard. 
In a late prison letter, Bonhoeffer explicitly observed that he had lived a full life even though he would die a virgin. This self-reflection is widely cited by biographers. 
Scholars across perspectives (including Charles Marsh in Strange Glory, Diane Reynolds in The Doubled Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and others) confirm there is no evidence of any sexual relationships—heterosexual or otherwise—before or during his engagement. His relationship with Maria was formal, intellectually distant at times, and constrained by war, imprisonment, and family dynamics. 
Bonhoeffer had no prior serious romantic relationships or “girlfriends” before Maria.
This aligns with his conservative Lutheran background, emphasis on costly discipleship, and views on sexuality as tied to covenantal community (e.g., in marriage). While some modern discussions speculate about his attractions or orientation (often in the context of his intense friendship with Bethge), there is scholarly consensus that he remained sexually abstinent throughout his life. 
In short, Bonhoeffer’s life and writings portray a man who integrated celibacy (or at least prolonged chastity) into a sense of vocational fullness, even amid deep longings for relationship and community.
—
This is what happens when society gets blamed for personal problems, when personal responsibility is off-loaded onto the collective. I’m sure most of these meth-heads were failed by others. But “society” is not to blame. The people who are to blame have names and addresses. Most likely, their parents are to blame. And of course, individuals have to be held responsible for their own decisions.
Treating drug addicts as “victims of society” who are therefore “owed” free stuff just perpetuates the problem. No one learns from the consequences of their actions or the actions of others because, as long as it’s a culturally approved form of irresponsibility, the welfare state will catch you in its safety net.
Draining resources from productive people to prop up irresponsible people can only go on so long before the system breaks.
Here’s another example:
This kind of “soft on crime because the murderer is really a victim of society” viewpoint that dominates the court system and law enforcement in blue areas is deeply corrosive to our culture.
—
Dispensationalists make a big deal about how the Jews today must have a divine right to the land because otherwise God has not kept his promise. But this misses the fact that God DID keep his promises to Israel within the horizon of the old covenant.
God promised Abraham a land. And God checked that box by giving them possession of the land. In 1 Kings 8:56, Solomon says, “Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant.”
Of course, Israel’s right to the promised land was never unconditional. The same God who promised them the land also threatened to kick them out of the land if they rebelled against him. See Leviticus 26:33, 38 and Deuteronomy 4:25-31; 28: 36-37, 64-68. Israel was exiled from the land because of her unbelief. The idea that ethnic Israel has an unconditional right to the land mapped out in Genesis 15 is unbiblical.
—
Sane assessment of Fuentes:
—
Grok’s assessment of the real world influence possessed by Fuentes and Webbon:
Nick Fuentes and Joel Webbon operate in overlapping but distinct niches on the far-right fringe—Fuentes as a secular(ish) white nationalist streamer and political provocateur, Webbon as a Christian nationalist pastor emphasizing theonomy, postmillennialism, and cultural dominance. Their influence is real within specific online subcultures, particularly among younger, disaffected conservative men, but it remains limited compared to mainstream conservative figures. 
Nick Fuentes
Fuentes (America First show) has the larger platform and more measurable cultural/political footprint:
- Audience & Reach: Over 1.3 million followers on X (as of recent data). Livestreams on Rumble frequently draw hundreds of thousands of views per episode, with some clips hitting millions across platforms (including reposts on Instagram and elsewhere). He reportedly earned ~$900k in donations/stream revenue since early 2025.
- Influence: Leads the “Groyper” movement, which trolls and pressures mainstream conservatives (e.g., “Groyper Wars” against Turning Point USA). Post-Charlie Kirk assassination (2025), his profile rose with more podcast appearances, feuds in GOP circles, and claims of sympathizers in government/staff. Some reports (e.g., Rod Dreher) suggest 30-40% (or higher per anecdotal claims) of young GOP Hill staffers align with Groyper-adjacent views. He shapes discourse on immigration, “America First” foreign policy skepticism, demographics, and antisemitism among Gen Z/young right-wingers.
- Limits: Often viewed as toxic by broader Republicans (denounced for Holocaust skepticism, Hitler comments, etc.). Some amplification may involve coordinated/bot-like activity. No major electoral wins or policy directorship; more of a spoiler/cultural agitator than power broker. Mainstream media amplifies him for outrage cycles, which boosts visibility but isolates him from institutional power.
Joel Webbon
Webbon (Right Response Ministries, Covenant Bible Church in Texas) has a smaller, more niche reach focused on theology and Christian nationalism: - Audience & Reach: ~109k X followers. His podcast/YouTube content draws steady but not massive engagement. Church-based with conference appearances (e.g., theonomy/postmil events).
- Influence: Prominent voice for “Christian nationalism”—arguing America belongs to Christians (Anglo-Protestant roots), non-Christians shouldn’t hold office, “the talk” on race/crime for white parents, etc. Allies with Fuentes on some issues (e.g., joint discussions on nationalism). Influences Reformed/postmil circles emphasizing dominion, patriarchy, and cultural takeover. Viral clips on race, gender, and politics get shared in evangelical/conservative spaces.
- Limits: Primarily a pastor/internet preacher. Influence is stronger in specific theological bubbles than broad politics. Faces backlash even from other conservatives for explicit racial and theocratic rhetoric.
Overall Assessment - Niche Power: Significant among a subset of young, online, radicalizing right-wing men disillusioned with mainstream conservatism (e.g., “post-MAGA” or accelerationist vibes). They contribute to shifting Overton windows on topics like immigration restriction, anti-wokeness, skepticism of foreign aid/wars, and critiques of “Judeo-Christian” framing. Clips spread virally, shaping memes and talking points.
- Broader Impact: Marginal. They lack the audience size, institutional access, or electoral success of figures like Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, or even Candace Owens. GOP leadership mostly distances itself (viewing them as liabilities). No evidence they dictate national policy or win major races. Their “influence” is often inflated by critics for fundraising/outrage and by fans for morale.
- Context: In a fragmented media landscape, they punch above their weight in specific demographics (Gen Z males on the right). But American conservatism remains dominated by older, more moderate/establishment voices, corporate interests, and electoral pragmatism. Demographic/cultural trends they highlight resonate with some data on polarization, but translating online edginess into sustained power is rare.
In short, they matter as symptoms and accelerators of right-wing radicalization and intra-conservative conflict, with dedicated cores that can harass or pressure bigger players. They do not “control” the right or represent majority views. Influence like this ebbs and flows with scandals, platform changes, and political cycles.
—
In his provocative 2011 book Suicide of a Superpower, Patrick J. Buchanan delivers a sobering diagnosis of America’s decline, arguing that the United States is not being conquered by external foes but is actively dismantling itself from within. Drawing on historian Arnold Toynbee’s famous observation that civilizations die from suicide rather than murder, Buchanan contends that America’s once-unrivaled position as a superpower is being eroded by self-inflicted wounds—cultural, demographic, moral, and political. The result is a compelling, if contentious, polemic that warns of national disintegration unless drastic course corrections are made.
Buchanan’s central thesis is that the foundations of American greatness—a shared Christian faith, a cohesive European-descended culture, fiscal and military restraint, and a commitment to national unity—are being deliberately abandoned. He organizes his case around several interlocking crises. First is the “death of Christian America.” Once anchored by Protestant Christianity as a unifying moral force, the nation has undergone rapid secularization. Buchanan traces how the removal of faith from public life, schools, and culture has left a vacuum filled by moral relativism and social fragmentation. He devotes particular attention to the crisis within Catholicism, his own tradition, as institutional scandals and doctrinal drift accelerate the broader de-Christianization.
A second major theme is demographic transformation. Buchanan highlights plunging birth rates among white and European Americans alongside mass immigration from the non-Western world. He views this as “the end of White America,” a shift that risks replacing the nation’s historic core with a more tribal, balkanized society. Low native fertility combined with open borders, he argues, is not merely changing the population but undermining the cultural cohesion necessary for a high-trust, high-functioning republic. This section echoes themes from his earlier work The Death of the West but applies them with greater urgency to America’s superpower status.
Buchanan also indicts a series of policy failures that compound these trends. Unrestrained free trade has hollowed out manufacturing. Multiculturalism and the cult of “diversity” foster division rather than genuine unity. Endless foreign wars drain resources while borders remain porous. Skyrocketing debt, an inability to win conflicts decisively, and egalitarian policies that prioritize outcomes over excellence all signal institutional decay. Chapters such as “Equality or Freedom?,” “The Triumph of Tribalism,” and “The Long Retreat” paint a picture of a government increasingly unable to perform basic sovereign functions amid rising internal discord.
What makes Suicide of a Superpower powerful is Buchanan’s command of data, history, and cultural observation. He marshals statistics on fertility, immigration, religious observance, and economic indicators to support his claims, weaving them into a narrative of unintended but foreseeable consequences. At times polemical, the book reads as both lament and urgent warning. Buchanan does not merely catalog decline; he offers an implicit prescription: renew Christian faith, restrict immigration to sustainable levels, prioritize American interests abroad, and rediscover the traditions that built the nation.
Critics have accused Buchanan of alarmism, nativism, or an overly racial reading of demographics. Supporters, however, see the book as prescient. Many of the trends he highlighted—rising polarization, cultural fragmentation, border chaos, and questions about national identity—have only intensified in the years since publication. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Buchanan forces readers to confront uncomfortable questions: Can a nation survive without a common faith or culture? Can “diversity” truly be a strength if it erodes the shared identity required for cohesion?
Suicide of a Superpower remains essential reading for anyone grappling with America’s trajectory in the 21st century. It is less a partisan tract than a conservative elegy for a vanishing order, written by a longtime political insider who fears his country is choosing self-destruction. Buchanan’s final question—“Will America survive to 2025?”—hangs heavily. As we pass that milestone, his analysis challenges us to assess whether the suicide can still be averted.
—
Both anti-Semites and dispensationalists make everything hinge on the Jews. They both agree the Jews are “special,” either in a good or bad way. It’s the weirdest example of horseshoe theory I’ve seen yet.
—
As I’ve said, the femsphere (or femosphere?) is pretty bad. This parody captures it:
—
I have no objection to the reality that cultures are often (I would not say “always”) changed by elites in elite institutions, in a top down way. Populist movements rarely accomplish much lasting change because they are typically reactionary, not principled, so they lose momentum quickly. Peasants’ revolts usually get crushed. I also agree that evangelicals (including their pastors) need to be more political, not less. Many of our problems today are not political at root and do not have political solutions. But politics can solve political problems — and those problems definitely need solving.
But elite theory does not provide us any solutions at the present moment because most of our elites are wicked psychopaths. Dislodging them from power and replacing them with better elites is no easy trick.
Elite theory can also become an excuse for those of us who are mere commoners, who live in the grass roots. Instead of waiting on the postmillennial revival (as some versions of postmillennialism would have us do), we are now waiting on God to raise up a new class of Christian elites who can fix our problems for us. But where will they come from?
We are back where we started — hoping our emphasis on the family/education, reforming the church, praying for change, evangelizing the lost and discipling believers in everyday virtues, etc., will somehow be used by God to raise up a new class of virtuous elites.
Our situation is very different from that of the early church of the first few centuries, but perhaps we can still learn something from them. Paul wanted to preach to the political elites and did so on a few occasions. We know of one who even converted. But on the whole, it took common Christians doing faithful, ordinary, everyday things a few centuries before God finally brought really significant change — and then God did so not replacing the pagan emperor with a Christian emperor, but converting the pagan emperor to Christian faith (as he had done with several kings/emperors in Gentile nations in the old covenant era).
Elite theory does not provide us with any shortcuts back to where we want to be — especially if we keep in mind that God often gives a people evil rulers as a punishment if he is angry with them. And simultaneously telling evangelicals they need to get political while also telling them cultural change only comes from elites doesn’t seem to be consistent. Elite institutions are pretty hostile to evangelicals. Evangelicals are not as politically powerless as early Christians in the Roman Empire, but we don’t have our hands on the levers of earthly power.
ADDENDUM: Wolfe is an interesting guy. He gets a phD in political philosophy (or something like), writes a long academic book, and then goes off to live in the woods while tweeting about how only elites can change culture. Why not try to be the change you’re talking about? Try to get a job at an elite institution. Run for office. Use your doctorate and your knowledge to do something more than just tweet about the collapse of civilization while complaining about do-nothing evangelicals. Why not she the rest of us how it’s done?
ADDENDUM (what actually got posted in X): Question for Dr. Wolfe: You are elite, at least to a degree. You have a doctorate from a major university. You have written a book on political philosophy that seems to have sold pretty well. You are high profile in your circles. Have you thought about trying to be the change you say we need? Did you apply for any positions at elite universities? Have you considered running for office? Tweeting about this stuff from the woods is not “elite” and (by your own admission) is not going to move the needle much. Telling evangelicals only elites change the culture while not trying to get an elite position yourself (when you’ve got a better shot than most) seems counter-productive. Why not show the rest of us how it should be done? Tweeting and podcasting about the collapse of civilization is not going to stop the slide.
ADDENDUM: Yes, candidates need big money support (think of Vance and Thiel). If that’s the case, what we really need is more Christian billionaires, a point I’ve been making for a while:
Dr. Wolfe would definitely be a viable candidate in the right district with financial backing. I wouldn’t want him to run where I live because he’d probably raise my taxes. But I think it’d be good for him to do it. And, yes, the debates would have real entertainment value.
—
What if there are no evangelical elites because most evangelicals are not really elite, but mediocre?
—
“The older I get, the more I think
You only get a minute, better live while you’re in it
‘Cause it’s gone in a blink
And the older I get, the truer it is
It’s the people you love, not the money and stuff, that makes you rich”
— Alan Jackson
—
Posted on May 12:
I’m no foreign policy expert and it’s no secret I questioned the wisdom of our military operation in Iran from the outset, but Kagan’s Atlantic article looks like a neo-con warhawk trying to goad and manipulate Trump into going into “endless war” mode. I don’t think Trump falls for it.
I grant Trump is between the rock of popular opinion standing against the war and the hard place of an incomplete mission. But to call this our worst defeat in history seems highly exaggerated and more than a bit premature. The American military has demonstrated its power and competence in this Iran operation. There is nothing humiliating in that, even if we did not accomplish every objective we set out to accomplish. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was far more embarrassing. I’m not even convinced anything about this operation will drastically change America’s global positioning. We have heard Kagan-type narratives about America’s complete demise on the world stage before, and in reality not much changed.
Again, I wish we had not gotten into this conflict. But I don’t want Iran to have nuclear capabilities, so I can understand why Trump went the direction he did. Everyone knows the Middle East is a quagmire. The worst that can be said about this operation is that we wasted a lot of money (which is business as usual for our government) trying to do the world a favor and ended up with little to show for it. But that is par for the course in that region. Just ask Napoleon.
My guess is negotiations continue until Trump uses his leverage to get something more reasonable and he finds a way to spin it as a victory. People will then do what they always do – either applauding Trump for his “art of the deal” win, or claim he is a narcissist and pathological liar. As usual, the truth will lie somewhere in between.
ADDENDUM: Is Trump being blackmailed?
The blackmail possibility has to be considered. Trump started acting kind of weird at some point over the Epstein files, Iran, etc. But we will probably never know the truth.
—
My advice to young men: Marry someone you want to come home to, not someone you’ll dread coming home to.
—
Marry someone you can laugh with. Marriage should be a joy, not a job. Marriage should relieve stress, not cause it.
—
Interesting notes on Trump’s China visit:
—
“A child kicks his legs rhythmically through excess, not absence, of life. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit, fierce and free, therefore, they want things, repeated and unchanged. They always say, “Do it again“; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony…it may be that he has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”
— G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
—
I think we’re getting to that point in The Camp of the Saints where they burn the beautiful oak doors.
“They will not try to understand. They will be tired. They will be cold. They will make a fire with your beautiful oak doors.”
— Camp of the Saints
ADDENDUM: No change in my views. Still opposed to open borders. Still pro assimilation for legal immigrants. Still opposed to racial identity politics. Still anti-anti-whiteness but not pro-white. Still pro Jesus.
—
“Discernment is not so much telling the difference between right and wrong, but between right and almost-right.”
— Spurgeon
—
“”Defund the police” is a luxury belief.”
— Rob Henderson
—
“Remember when the sound of little feet
Was the music we danced to week to week
Brought back the love, we found trust
Vowed we’d never give it up
Remember when
Remember when 30 seemed so old
Now, lookin’ back, it’s just a steppin’ stone
To where we are, where we’ve been
Said we’d do it all again
Remember when
Remember when we said when we turned gray
When the children grow up and move away
We won’t be sad, we’ll be glad
For all the life we’ve had
And we’ll remember when”
— Alan Jackson
—
So hyper war-hawk Kagan is calling Trump’s military operation Iran a defeat of massive proportions. A few thoughts:
First, given Kagan’s love for war, this looks to me like propaganda to try to lure Trump into a massive on-the-ground invasion. I’m sure there are neo-cons who would love that. I don’t think Trump falls for it. I grant Trump is caught between a rock and a hard place he should have seen coming before launching this campaign (cf. Luke 14:31-32). On one hand, he has not been able to finish business in Iran or negotiate a reasonable peace settlement as quickly as he needed to. That’s a legitimate problem. On the other hand, the American public is general is not interested in this kind of war dragging on. We’ve seen how these quagmires play out before. So does he goes against public opinion to try to finish the job, or does he cave to public opinion and leave the mission incomplete? He’s got a tough decision, but this is a jam of his own making. He should have stuck to his “no new wars” promise. Military superiority does not always translate into victory, especially in the Middle East.
Second, while I have not been onboard with this war, I think Kagan’s declaration of unprecedented defeat is greatly exaggerated and a bit premature. Iran’s capabilities have been severely degraded. Perhaps their nuclear project is fully in tact; if so, that remains a serious problem. But I’m not convinced the issue with Hormuz has been settled. We still have to see how this plays out. Even if the fighting is over (a big if), the negotiations are not.
Finally, I don’t think this will be the kind of humiliation to America that Kagan claims. I see the Afghanistan pull out as far more embarrassing. Our military has been competent in the Iran. While we have not accomplished the objectives Trump initially laid out in the timeframe he had to work with, I’m not convinced America’s place on the global stage is radically altered, even if he ends it soon. If Iran becomes a nuclear power at some point, a power shift in the Middle East was going to happen anyway. Trying to stop Iran from getting nukes and failing will end up being no different than if we hadn’t tried at all.
The wildcard is Israel. Even if Trump pulls out of this war, Israel will still have a say in what happens next. They might decide to continue prosecuting war even without us.
If Kagan is right about America’s failure in Iran, it will certainly put a damper on Trump’s plans for America’s 250th birthday celebration this July. But a lot can happen between now and then.
—
Studies show that progressives are much more likely to break up a friendship or cut off family members over political differences. Doesn’t that prove that political idolatry is much more common on the left than the right? But if you listen to Big Eva, you’d think political idolatry is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.
—
I asked Grok, Does America NEED oil from the Middle East? Can we get it all domestically or at least from our hemisphere?
The answer:
“No, the United States does not strictly “need” oil from the Middle East for its overall supply. It can (and largely does) meet its needs domestically and from the Western Hemisphere, though imports from the Middle East provide some specific grades of crude that certain refineries prefer. 
Key Facts (2025 Data)
- US crude oil production: Record ~13.6 million barrels per day (b/d).
- US crude oil imports: ~6.2 million b/d.
- Middle East Gulf share (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, etc.): Only ~490,000 b/d, or 8% of total crude imports (and a tiny fraction of total US supply). This is down dramatically from decades past.
- Domestic + Hemisphere dominance: Canada alone supplies the majority of imports (~60%+), followed by Mexico and others in the Americas (Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Together, North America and the hemisphere cover the vast bulk of imports.
The US is a net exporter of petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, etc.) overall, even while remaining a net importer of crude oil. Refineries process more crude than the US produces domestically, then export refined fuels.
Why Import at All?
US refineries are optimized for specific crude types: - Many Gulf Coast refineries are designed for heavy/sour crudes (higher sulfur, denser) from Canada (oil sands), Mexico, Venezuela, and some Middle East sources. Light sweet crude from US shale doesn’t always substitute perfectly without adjustments.
- West Coast refineries (limited pipelines from Canada) rely more on seaborne imports, including some from the Middle East.
These imports are economic and logistical choices, not existential necessities. Disruptions in the Middle East can still influence global prices (since oil is a world market), affecting US consumers indirectly even with low direct dependence.
Hemisphere Potential - Canada: World’s largest supplier to the US; vast oil sands reserves; reliable and pipeline-connected.
- Mexico: Significant heavy crude, though production has declined.
- Venezuela: Large reserves; US imports have fluctuated with politics but are heavy crude that matches refinery needs.
- Combined with booming US shale/tight oil, the Western Hemisphere has ample supply. Increased domestic drilling, permitting, or Canadian/Venezuelan output could further reduce any foreign reliance.
Bottom line: America is effectively energy independent in practical terms regarding the Middle East. Direct dependence is minimal (~8% of imports, far less of total supply), and alternatives exist abundantly in the US and nearby. Full “no imports ever” would require refinery reconfigurations and higher costs in some cases, but it’s not required for security or supply. Global price volatility remains a factor regardless.”
Ok, great. So that raises the question: Why shouldn’t we leave the Middle East and get our oil from elsewhere? Why not let Israel and other nations in the region sort it out? If we don’t really need oil from the Middle East, how does fighting a war there serve American interests?
Grok answers:
“No, the US shouldn’t simply “leave the Middle East” and let regional players (including Israel) fully sort it out—primarily because oil is a global market, and instability there directly harms American consumers and the economy, while other vital interests like counterterrorism, alliances, and preventing rival powers from dominating key chokepoints are at stake. Full disengagement isn’t cost-free, though endless entanglement carries real risks and costs too. Here’s a clear-eyed breakdown based on current realities (as of May 2026).
Oil Isn’t Just About Direct Imports—It’s Global
The US imports very little crude from the Middle East (~8% of imports, a tiny slice of total supply). We produce ~13+ million barrels/day domestically and are a net exporter of refined products. But oil prices are set globally. The Persian Gulf (via the Strait of Hormuz) carries ~20% of the world’s seaborne oil and significant LNG. Disruptions there spike prices everywhere. 
- In the ongoing 2026 Iran war (which began with US/Israeli strikes on Feb. 28), Iran effectively closed/blockaded the Strait. This caused the largest supply disruption in history: exports dropped sharply, global oil prices surged (Brent hit $100+/barrel at peaks), and US gasoline prices rose 19–46% (to $3.50–$4.50+/gallon in places). Even with US rerouting and Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases, Americans felt it at the pump.
- US Navy operations (“Project Freedom”) are now escorting tankers to reopen the strait because the economic pain is real—not abstract.
Getting “oil from elsewhere” (Canada, domestic shale, etc.) doesn’t insulate us when global supply shocks drive inflation, higher costs for everything from groceries to transport, and slower growth. The market is interconnected; isolation doesn’t work here.
US Isn’t “Fighting a War” in the Classic Sense—But Involvement Serves Clear Interests
As of May 2026, the US has a major military buildup (carriers, Marines, airstrikes, blockades) tied to the Iran conflict, plus ongoing ops against ISIS remnants, Houthis (Red Sea shipping attacks), and Iran proxies. This stems from strikes aimed at Iran’s nuclear program and regional aggression—not endless nation-building like past wars. Key US interests include: - Countering Iran and proxies: Iran funds/arms groups (Hezbollah, Houthis, militias) that attack US forces/bases, Israel, Gulf allies, and shipping. Weakening them prevents threats from reaching the US homeland or allies (post-9/11 lessons). The 2026 National Defense Strategy prioritizes deterring Iran while empowering partners like Israel and Gulf states to do more.
- Freedom of navigation and chokepoints: US presence (bases in Bahrain, Qatar, etc.) keeps sea lanes open for global trade—not just oil. This benefits the entire economy.
- Alliances and burden-sharing: Gulf partners and Israel increasingly handle their own defense (Abraham Accords integration). The US provides backstop (intelligence, tech, occasional strikes) but pushes “America First” by having allies step up.
Why Not Just Let Israel (and Others) “Sort It Out”?
Israel is a key strategic partner, not a charity case: - Mutual benefits: Israel shares intelligence that has thwarted attacks on US targets, provides battle-tested tech (cyber, drones, missile defense like Iron Dome), and degrades shared enemies (Iran proxies). This saves US lives and money. Recent ops showed Israel clearing paths for US strikes and providing real-time intel.
- Regional stability: Unchecked Iran or chaos could spark wider wars, refugee flows, or extremism export—none of which are “America First.” Partners like Saudi Arabia/UAE are normalizing ties with Israel partly for this reason.
- Power vacuum risk: Full US exit could let China/Russia expand influence (they already court the region), embolden adversaries, and raise long-term costs for the US.
That said, critics (including some “restraint” advocates) argue US interests are overstated now that we’re energy-independent: oil flows aren’t existentially threatened long-term, endless presence breeds resentment, and regional powers should handle their rivalries. Wars cost blood/treasure, and over-involvement hasn’t always stabilized the region.
Bottom Line: Interests vs. Costs
Leaving entirely would likely mean higher gas prices from future disruptions, a stronger Iran threatening allies/US assets, and lost leverage/tech/intel from partners like Israel. But the US doesn’t need to micromanage every conflict or maintain Cold War-era commitments forever. Current policy (under the Trump administration’s “peace through strength”) focuses on targeted action, ally empowerment, and avoiding quagmires—while still protecting core interests like energy markets and countering Iran.
It’s not zero-sum. The US can reduce footprint where possible (as in some past drawdowns) without full abandonment. “Let them sort it out” sounds appealing until global prices, terrorism, or rival powers remind us why the region matters. Real security is about prioritizing threats that hit American wallets, safety, and prosperity—not ideology or endless wars.”
That’s not convincing. The military operation has raised prices and cost a great deal, in money if not (yet) lives. No one has had success stabilizing the Middle East – not the UK, not Russia, not the US, thus far. Why should we think we can do it if we keep trying? And it seems we can protect ourselves from terror attacks without this kind of military intervention or even presence. Why should we engage in this conflict when we only get 8% of our oil from there and could probably replace that with other sources?
Grok answers:
“Fair points—you’re highlighting real costs, historical patterns, and the low direct oil dependence, and those deserve straight answers without spin. The $25 billion+ spent so far on the 2026 Iran operations (mostly munitions, per Pentagon figures as of late April) plus the spike in global oil prices from the Strait of Hormuz disruptions are undeniable downsides. No outside power (British mandates, Soviet/Russian interventions, or U.S. efforts) has ever “stabilized” the Middle East long-term because its conflicts are rooted in deep sectarian, ethnic, and ideological divides that outsiders can’t fix. And yes, the U.S. gets only about 8% of its crude imports from the Middle East Gulf (490,000 barrels/day out of 6.2 million total in 2025, with Canada dominating). We could technically replace that volume elsewhere. So why stay engaged at all?
The Current Conflict Isn’t About “Stabilizing the Whole Region”
U.S. involvement right now (strikes starting Feb. 28, 2026, carrier groups, escorts for shipping) is narrower: countering Iran’s nuclear program, missile/drone attacks on U.S. bases and allies, and its proxies shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea shipping. It’s not the nation-building of Iraq 2003 or Afghanistan. The goal is containing a specific threat that escalated into direct conflict—not remaking the Middle East. History shows outsiders fail at the latter, which is why restraint advocates (from think tanks like Quincy Institute to some realists) argue for pulling back and letting regional powers balance themselves. They’ve got evidence on their side: repeated U.S. ground wars bred resentment and new threats without lasting peace.
But “Leaving” Doesn’t Eliminate the Costs—Oil Is Global
Even with low direct imports, the market is one big pool. The Hormuz disruption (20% of world seaborne oil + significant LNG) caused the largest supply shock in history: Brent crude spiked (briefly over $120/barrel), U.S. gas prices rose sharply, and it rippled into inflation, higher costs for goods, and slower growth. U.S. consumers and businesses felt it regardless of where our crude comes from. Replacing that 8% domestically or from Canada/Mexico is feasible long-term, but short-term chaos from a blockade or wider war still hits the economy hard. Past price shocks (1970s, 1990 Gulf War, etc.) proved this—it’s not abstract. Full disengagement might avoid direct spending but wouldn’t shield Americans from those indirect hits if Iran or others dominate key chokepoints.
Terrorism Protection and Broader Interests
You’re right that homeland terror threats have been managed post-9/11 partly through better domestic security, intel, and targeted strikes (drones, special ops) rather than massive ground presence. Forward bases aren’t strictly required for every threat. However, data shows presence has degraded some networks (e.g., ISIS territorial caliphate destroyed via coalition ops) while airstrikes alone sometimes fueled recruitment (e.g., AQAP growth in Yemen). Blowback is real—U.S. troops become targets and symbols for radicals.
Other interests beyond oil:
- Proliferation: A nuclear Iran changes the game—potential for arms races, blackmail, or worse (not just vs. Israel, but enabling proxies with advanced weapons).
- Allies and vacuum risks: Israel shares intel/tech that has directly aided U.S. counterterrorism and defense (e.g., missile systems, cyber). Gulf partners buy U.S. weapons and increasingly handle more of their own security. Full exit could let Iran expand, draw in China/Russia for basing/influence, and raise long-term costs (higher defense spending elsewhere or lost leverage).
- Trade/security: Keeping sea lanes open protects global commerce that the U.S. economy relies on.
The Realistic Case for Less (Not Zero) Engagement
No one serious claims the U.S. can magically succeed where others failed at “stabilization.” Past efforts show over-involvement often backfires. The restraint view—that we should offshore-balance (support allies from afar, avoid quagmires) and prioritize China over Middle East forever wars—has grown stronger precisely because of energy independence and fatigue. Current policy under Trump emphasizes “peace through strength” with allies stepping up more, not endless occupation. But mid-conflict full withdrawal risks handing wins to adversaries, spiking prices further, and inviting bigger problems later.
You’re not wrong that the math on direct oil dependence doesn’t justify massive entanglement. The debate is whether the indirect risks (global energy shocks, nuclear spread, empowered rivals) outweigh the very real costs you’re pointing out. History suggests humility: we can’t fix the region, and pretending we can is expensive folly. Targeted, limited action against acute threats (like nuclear sites or shipping attacks) is one thing; open-ended presence is another. Policymakers should weigh those trade-offs with data, not slogans—your skepticism is exactly why that debate matters.”
Grok didn’t convince me, but I’ll stop there. If the money spent on the war was used to further bolster production in the US (or at least our hemisphere), or lower taxes, it seems like it’d be a better use of money for a nation already deep in debt with a struggling economy. I don’t want Iran to have nuclear capability, and this might justify military action like what we’ve undertaken, but I’m also not convinced Iran can put America in any real danger any time soon.
—
It’s a paradox but it’s true: A life devoted to self-fulfillment is not fulfilling. Selfishness is empty; pouring oneself out is fulfilling.
See Luke 9:23ff.
—
Both Jew-hating conspiracy theorists and dispensationalists make everything hinge on the Jews. They both agree the Jews are “special,” either in a good or bad way. They both see the Jews as the key to history. It’s the weirdest example of horseshoe theory I’ve seen.
ADDENDUM: “The only categories that matter now are Christian and non-Christian. There are no more ‘Jews’ or ‘Gentiles.’”
Of course, I agree. Which is why what I describe is problematic. Obviously various nations and people groups continue to exist, but what counts most is being in Christ or outside of Christ. Every people group is full of sinners. And every people groups has, or will have, a great multitude who belong to the redeemed family of God.
ADDENDUM: I thought this was a good comment: “A lot of what is labeled Jew-hate is actually victim mentality. And a lot of what is called dispensational zionism is simply favoritism. Both are anti-Christian.”
—
There are problems with Bonhoeffer’s theology (Uri’s analogy with Wright are fitting, even though most of Wright’s errors are of a different sort than Bonhoeffer’s), but the suggestion that Bonhoeffer was not a Christian, was heretical, etc. are incredibly dumb. American evangelicals are not very good at understanding theologians outside their own tradition. To understand Bonhoeffer fairly, we have to understand how he used his terms.
Bonhoeffer affirmed the bodily resurrection of Jesus. As Uri points out, reading his Easter sermons would bear this out. He did say some weird things about the resurrection body of Jesus. But he affirmed the empty tomb. His problem was with epistemology, more than the resurrection itself. Since it was a miracle, he did not believe the resurrection could be known or proved in the way other historical events can be known and proved. Instead, we know Christ is risen through faith and our experience of the apostle’s testimony. Frankly, Bonhoeffer could have benefited from a book like Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God, which provides a compelling historical and empirical argument for the resurrection. But being wong about the way we know Christ is risen (largely due to neo-orthodox influences on his theology) is not at all the same as denying the resurrection itself.
Much of Bonhoeffer’s work is excellent and would be very useful to American evangelicals. The Cost of Discipleship is weird at points, but overall very good. His work on the Psalms and the church as community in Life Together are both quite good. No, he did not have a fully adequate doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy, but he also stood squarely against the theological liberalism and compromise of the German church in his day. He signed the Barmen Declaration which was about the best Germany could offer at that time because the church was in such a state of declension. I have no reason to doubt he died in Christian faith. We can be honest about his theological shortcomings while regarding him as a brother in Christ. The best way to categorize Bonhoeffer is to see him as a confessional Lutheran who adopted some aspects of neo-orthodoxy — and while there are definitely problems with neo-orthodoxy, Bonhoeffer was not heretical.
The real reason it’s suddenly necessary to demonize Bonhoeffer is because he stood against the “last Christian prince.” But that depends on a re-narrating of German history that I find completely unconvincing. It’s seems wildly hypocritical to lionize a neo-pagan like Hitler who really did reject the bodily resurrection of Jesus (and other major tenants of the Christian faith, like the deity of Jesus) while demonizing Bonhoeffer for being mildly influenced by neo-orthodoxy in some of his theological expressions and his epistemology. I have every reason to think Bonhoeffer is in heaven. I have every reason to think Hitler is in hell.
According to Otto Wagener, Hitler believed that “Christ’s body was removed from the tomb to keep it from being an object of veneration.” Goebbels stated that Hitler wanted to withdraw his membership from the Catholic Church, but was waiting for a moment when it would be politically expedient. In his diary, Goebbels wrote, “The Fuhrer thinks Christianity is ripe for destruction. That may still take a long time, but it’s coming.” Hitler continued in his religious duplicity because he wanted to keep the German people united during the war effort. Privately, Hitler told a newspaper reporter, “You must know, I am a heathen. I understand that to mean: a non-Christian.” Hitler was an evolutionist, who borrowed the language of Christian faith while filling those categories with a form of eclectic and philosophical paganism.
Here is Bonhoeffer in his own words on the resurrection:
“The resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s yes to the creature.
It is not a destruction of the embodiedness, but rather the new creation of embodiedness that takes place here. The body of Jesus leaves the tomb, and the tomb is empty. Just how is it possible or conceived that the mortal, perishable body is now present as the immortal, imperishable, transfigured body remains a mystery to us. Perhaps the different versions of the disciples’ encounter with the Resurrected help to make clear that we ourselves are unable to imagine what is meant by this new bodiliness of the Resurrected…We do know that God has judged the first creation, and has created a new creation in the exact image of the first.
It is not an idea of Christ that lives on, but the real, physical Christ. That is God’s yes to the new creature in the midst of the old creature. From the resurrection we know that God has not abandoned the earth, but has reconquered it, has given it a new future, a new promise. The same earth that God created bore God’s Son and his cross, and on this earth the resurrected appeared to his disciples, and to this earth Christ will return on the last day. Whoever affirms Christ’s resurrection in faith can no longer flee the world, but neither can they fall prey to the world, for in the midst of the old they have recognized God’s new creation.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ demands faith. The one consistent witness of all these accounts, as divergent as they are in telling what occurred and was experienced here, is that the Resurrected appeared not to the world, but only to his followers (Acts 10:40f). Jesus did not present himself to some impartial authority to attest before the world the miracle of his resurrection, thus coercing the world to acknowledge him. He wants to be believed, proclaimed, and believed again. The world as it were, sees only the negative, the earthly impression of the divine miracle. It sees the tomb and explains it (albeit in conscious self deception) as a pious deception on the part of the disciples (Matt. 28:11ff.) It sees the disciples’ joy and message, and declares it to be a vision or an auto-suggestion. The world sees the “signs” but does not believe the miracle. Only where the miracle is believed do the signs become divine signs and thus an aid to faith.
For the world, the empty tomb is an ambiguous historical fact. For believers, is the historic sign — one following necessarily from and confirming the miracle of the resurrection – of the God who acts in history with human beings. There is no historical proof of the resurrection, only a plethora of facts that are extremely peculiar and difficult to interpret even for the historian. For example, we have the empty tomb. For if the tomb had not been empty, this strongest counter-argument against a physical resurrection would certainly have become the basis for an anti-Christian polemic. Nowhere, however, do we encounter this objection. In fact, the opposing side confirms the empty tomb (Matt. 28:11).
Or we have the sudden turn of events two days after the crucifixion. A conscious deception is excluded psychologically by virtue of the disciples entire earlier and subsequent behavior, and also by the divergent nature of the resurrection accounts themselves. Self-deception through visionary states is rendered virtually an impossibility for the unbiased historian, given the disciples’ own initially quite unbelieving and skeptical rejection of the message together with the considerable number and manner of appearances.
Hence the historians’ evaluation of this matter, which from a scientific perspective remains such a riddle, will be dictated by presuppositions contained in their worldview. But this robs their conclusions of any interest or import for faith, which is grounded in God’s acts in history. Research can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, for it is a miracle of God. Faith, however, to whom the Resurrected attests himself to as the living Christ, recognizes precisely in the witness of scripture the historic nature of the resurrection as an act of God which in its miraculous nature can only be a riddle for science. Faith receives the certainty of the resurrection only from the present witness of Christ. It finds its confirmation in the historic imprints of the miracle as recounted by scripture.
It is the blessing of Jesus Christ that he does not yet reveal himself visibly to the world, for the very moment that happened would be the end and thus the judgment on unbelief. So the Resurrected withdraws from any visibly salvaging of his honor before the word. In his hidden glory he is with his community, and is attested through the word before all the world, till at the Last Judgment he will come, visible to all human beings, to judge them all.”
I would say some things differently than Bonhoeffer does here, but these are the words of a man who denies the bodily resurrection.
ADDENDUM: Was Bonhoeffer’s role in the assassination attempt on Hitler justified?
Bonhoeffer was an intelligence officer in the German military, so I suppose he could be considered a lesser magistrate of sorts (though a very, very lesser one). In Bonhoeffer’s own mind, he was “sinning boldly” — a very Lutheran way of looking at it.
ADDENDUM: Some of you guys live in a world that is way, way too simplistic. People are not cardboard cut outs, with black or white hats on. I’m critical of Dabney at points but my overall admiration of him is clear. I’ve quoted him many times affirmatively with no qualification. And I am highly critical of aspects of Bonhoeffer’s work – I don’t put him forward as model theologian (and Uri was not either), as the first line of my post indicates. But we should not lie about him or anyone else in order to prop up “our side.”
I’m not “punching” Dabney while “coping” for Bonhoeffer. I’m understanding each on their own terms and judging them according to the same fixed standard.
The friend/enemy distinction has to be anchored to absolute truth. Otherwise, it just becomes another form of toxic empathy. And criticizing someone on a particular topic does not automatically put them in the enemy camp. Only simpletons look at life like that.
—
I see that David Allan Coe passed away. His death brings to mind some of his lyrics:
“But the only time I know I’ll hear “David Allan Coe” Is when Jesus has his final judgment day.”
For certain, Coe will hear his name called on judgment day. I hope he repented while there was time.
—
I heard several people say some variation of, “You know what you find wherever there seems to be great suffering and misery? Jews.”
My thought: You know what else you find where there is great suffering and misery? Gentiles!
—
“A husband must do his best to see that no one know his wife’s faults but himself and God. He should be unwilling to voice them to anyone but God, to pray that she may be pardoned for them and reformed from them. Likewise, a wife must do her best to keep her husband’s struggles and sins to herself, as matters of prayer and not gossip. Neither spouse should be surprised by the sins of the other, for each of them is well aware of their own sins. Can it be helpful to uncover faults in public and fling mud in each other’s faces? Will this help a husband reform or a wife to repent? And which is more displayed in such a case, the spouse’s faults and weaknesses or the gossip’s unkindness, indiscretion, backbiting, and folly? Does not the family dog behave better than this when it barks at strangers but not at members of the family?…The common practice of publishing each other’s faults must therefore be put far away from every spouse, for it is a treacherous evil and looks more like the hatred one might show to an enemy than the love demanded in a marriage.”
— Joel Beeke
—
Follow up to my 5/10/26 sermon:
I wanted to talk about this in the sermon but ran out of time. I realize it was not the classic Mother’s Day sermon (Mother’s Day is not technically part of the church calendar!), but the story with Michal just happened to land on last week. What’s going on with Michal at the end of 2 Samuel 6? She mocks David’s dancing and then seeks to manipulate him. She is clearly angry with him. David maintains frame and stays grounded in his mission. He pushes back against her insult in an appropriate way, defending his act of devotion and reminding her that God has given him a mission as king. It seems more than anything, she is embarrassed by David, and that embarrassment turns into bitterness. She ends up getting punished for her sin with barrenness. For Michal, bitterness leads to barrenness. The reality is that she should not have been embarrassed by David at all. David was welcoming the Lord’s ark to his city and that called for a joyous and humble celebration. As I pointed out in the sermon, Michal might have had other grounds to be frustrated with David — her life was hard, no doubt, especially for a member of the royal court. But in this case, she should not have been upset with him. She should have shared in his joy. After dancing before the ark, David had come home to bless his family, but as soon as he walks in the door, Michal insults him. Her reviling behavior prevents that blessing from happening — and she is cursed as a result.
Bitterness threatens all our relationships. Everyone you meet is a sinner and when you interact with people — especially people you are around everyday, like family members — the potential for sin to cause friction, leading to bitterness and resentment is real: Holding grudges that love should cover. Refusing to forgive. Replaying the scene in our minds again and again when someone wronged us. Allowing little things to annoy us. Selfishly focusing on our own needs and ignoring what God has called others to do that may take them away from serving us. Lashing out rather than holding our tongue. And so on. Michal’s example reminds us it is possible to become bitter even when we have not actually been sinned against (though obviously most of the time the temptation to bitterness arises from real grievances — they key is how we handle those grievances). Just as Michal’s bitterness seems to have ruined what could have been a glorious day in David’s home, and possibly ruined her marriage to David, we are always in danger of letting bitterness wreck community, inside and outside our homes.
What keeps friction from building up in Christian relationships is the art of forgiveness. Sometimes we forgive implicitly. Someone may not even realize they sinned against us. The sin is small. We have the option of letting love cover it and just going on with life. But if the sin is big enough to nag at us and affect the relationship, allowing bitterness to creep in, it needs to be dealt with, and that means having a conversation with the person who offended you. Confrontation should always be gentle (Galatians 6:1). And as soon as someone confesses sin to us, we should forgive it. Forgiveness is a promise — a promise to not hold their sin against them in the relationship. Forgiveness does not remove all consequences of an action, but it does bring healing.
On the other hand, when we realize we have sinned against someone else, we should confess right away. Keeping short accounts is crucial. Name the sin, and explicitly ask for forgiveness. A vague, “I’m sorry” is not enough. By naming the specific sin and asking forgiveness for the sin, you give the person you sinned against an opportunity to complete the transaction of forgiveness by saying, “I forgive you for what you did.” That closes the loop. The goal is always complete restoration of the relationship. In 2 Samuel 6, Michal could have gone to David and asked his forgiveness — but there is no hint in the text that she did that.
Allowing bitterness to grow makes relationships that should be fruitful barren. You lose your brother when the goal should be to gain him. You destroy a friendship that should have been restored. Don’t be like Michal and let bitterness ruin a relationship.
__
“Marital love must be sexual. Both marital partners should give themselves fully to each other with joy and exuberance in a healthy sexual relationship marked by fidelity. Reformers such as Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin reestablished this aspect of marriage by abandoning medieval Roman Catholic notions that marriage was inferior to celibacy, that all sexual contact between marital partners was only a necessary evil to propagate the human race, and that any procreative act that involved passion was inherently sinful. This
negative view was rooted in the writings of ancient church fathers such as Tertullian, Ambrose, and Jerome, all of whom believed that sexual intercourse necessarily involved sin even within marriage. This attitude toward sex in marriage held sway among the church’s leaders for more than ten centuries, and it inevitably led to the exaltation of virginity and celibacy. By the fifth century, deacons, priests, and bishops were prohibited from marrying. Two spiritualsclergyof Christians emerged: the “religious” (i.e., the Song 1:1), secularhlaityluded monks and nuns who vowed to abstain from all sexual activity, and the “profane” (i.e., the Gen. 26:8), who, being unable to practice the exalted virtues of virginity or celibacy, were conceded the right to marry.
Puritan preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even
satanic. They cited Paul, who said that prohibition of marriage is a “doctrine of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Puritan definitions of marriage implied the conjugal act. For example, William Perkins (1558–1602) defines marriage as “the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh.”The Puritans viewed sex within marriage as a gift of God and as an
essential, enjoyable part of marriage. Gouge said that husbands and wives should cohabit “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.” “They do err,” Perkins added, “who hold that the secret coming together of man and wife cannot be without sin unless it be done for the procreation of children.”
Perkins goes on to say that marital sex is a “due debt” or “due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:3) that married persons owe to their spouses. That debt must be paid, he says, “with a singular and entire affection one towards another” in three ways: “First, by the right and lawful use of their bodies or of the marriage bed.” Such physical intimacy by “holy usage” should be “a holy and undefiled action (Heb. 13:4) . . . sanctified by the word and prayer (1 Tim. 4:3–4).” The fruits of God-honoring, enjoyable sex in marriage are the blessing of children, “the preservation of the body in cleanness,” and the reflection of marriage as a type of the bond between Christ and His church. Second, married couples must “cherish one another” intimately (Eph. 5:29) rather than having sex in the impersonal way of an adulterer with a prostitute. Third, a couple should be intimate “by an holy kind of rejoicing and solacing themselves each with [the] other in a mutual declaration of the signs and tokens of love and kindness (Prov. 5:18–19; Song 1:1; Gen. 26:8; Isa. 62:7).”….
Other Puritans stressed the romantic side of marriage as they compared the love of a husband to God’s love for His people. Thomas Hooker (1586–1647) wrote, “The man whose heart is endeared to the woman he loves, he dreams of her in the night, hath her in his eye and apprehension when he awakes, museth on her as he sits at table, walks with her when he travels and parlies with her in each place where he comes.” He also said, “She lies in his Bosom, and his heart trusts in her, which forceth all to confess, that the stream of his affection, like a mighty current, runs with full tide and strength.”
Rightfully so, the emphasis on finding romance within marriage (rather than in extramarital relations, as was common in the Middle Ages) has been attributed to the Puritans. Herbert W. Richardson writes that “the rise of romantic marriage and its validation by the Puritans represents a major innovation within the Christian tradition.” And C.S. Lewis says, “The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely the work of . . . Puritan poets.” Thus the Puritans emphasized that marital love, in addition to being spiritual love, must be sexual love. In this way, they embraced God’s gift of marriage as the superlative or highest form of human love known on earth.”
— Joel Beeke
—
“The rise of romantic marriage and its validation by the Puritans represents a major innovation within the Christian tradition.”
— Herbert W. Richardson
“The conversion of courtly love into romantic monogamous love was largely the work of…Puritan poets.”
— C.S. Lewis
—
From a letter by Tertullian, to his wife, ca. 202 AD:.
“How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.
Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”
—
“Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Uses of Diversity
Interestingly, American got human sacrifice in 1973 in the form of the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling. first earth day 1970, endangered species act 1973, pets have replaced children
A generation after legalizing abortion we have record low fertility and record highs in pet ownership, expenses on pets, etc.
—
One of the Puritans on choosing a wife:
“If a woman’s flesh has more of beauty than her spirit has of Christianity, it is like poison in sweetmeats, most dangerous.”
—
“There is no society more near, more entire, more needful, more kindly, more delightful, more comfortable, more constant, more continual, than the society of man and wife.”
— Thomas Gataker
—
Of all the voices out there right now, I think I trust Nick Freitas the most. He is knowledgeable and mature. He is entertaining but not a shock-jock. He seems pretty well grounded in his faith. He is calm and thoughtful in his analysis. He combines a solid understanding of economics with a lot of insight about contemporary political issues. He is nuanced and fair so he never paints with too broad a brush. And he does it all from a Christian worldview.
This episode of his podcast is a good example of why I like his analysis. I think he’s fair to Tucker, Megan, etc. I think he’s correct that Fuentes’ accelerationism proves he’s not really a conservative. It’s a pretty good overview of the lay of the land:
—
Marriage is a risk, no question. Because of cultural circumstances, it’s a greater risk today than in the past. But it’s still a risk worth taking. There’s no reward without risk. As Chesterton put it, “Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.”
—
At least since the Boomers and the 1960s, America’s new original sin is the conviction that we deserve pleasure without responsibility or consequences.
—
Modern women have the same hypergamous programming women have always had – they want to marry “up,” to a man taller, richer, more accomplished. But her feminist programming tells her this man should view as an “equal” in every way. It’s a contradiction with no resolution.
—
“She is why I fight.”
Every man can relate.
—
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”
— G. K. Chesterton
—
“The triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”
— G. K. Chesterton
—
In most of life, men are practically-minded realists. But romance is the exception. Men cast logic, practicality, and pragmatism aside in romantic pursuit of a woman. When it comes to love and marriage, men are the romantics.
Women are the opposite. They are idealists, not realists, in most of life, easily swept away by beauty and fantasy. But in marriage, they become ruthlessly practical and pragmatic.
—
Women just are, men must become. Women are defined by what they are, men by what they do. Chesterton explains: “A good man’s work is effected by doing what he does, a woman’s by being what she is.”
—
Christian ethics, like Christian theology, is full of paradoxes.
We love sinners even as we hate them (cf. Psalm 139).
We are angry at the very people we also love.
We wage a culture war with the weapon of truth, even as we love those who fight on the other side of the cultural war. Those who oppose us in the culture war are certainly enemies, but they also comprise our mission field – and every missionary has to love those he seeks to reach.
It’s possible to hate feminism while also being kind and compassionate to the feminists you interact with everyday.
It’s possible to oppose sodomy and the whole LGBTQ movement while still showing compassion to those committing and celebrating these sins. It’s possible to advocate for the criminalization of sodomy, transgenderism, and abortion while being friendly to individuals in these lifestyles. So long as the state permits these crimes against nature, we will encounter people in daily life engaged in them and we do not further the cause of the gospel by being unkind. Speak the truth, but speak the truth in love. They may call our love speech “hate speech” but that doesn’t change our obligation.l to do what is right.
One thing I have tried to do when I have preached on these issues is make these paradoxes clear. I believe sodomy and abortion should be capital crimes, per biblical law. But they are not capital crimes right now. So what do we do? We certainly advocate for social/political righteousness. But in the meantime, when we encounter individuals who defend and practice these things, personal kindness has to be part of our response.
I have people in my church who have snorted babies (before they joined). They know what they did was wrong, they have confessed it, repented, and they know they are forgiven. That’s glorious.
Christians have sometimes been unkind to those who practice these sins because we want to make our disgust and disapproval clear. I have seen it with my own eyes, several times over the course of my life, going back to high school. I do not think this unkindness really does anything useful. It does not persuade. It does not move the ball down the field in the culture war. It does not get us closer to any legitimately Christian goals. The story of Rosaria Butterfield’s conversion is instructive here. She encountered a pastor who spoke the truth firmly but did so in a context of friendliness, drawing her into Christian community even when she was still a lesbian. It won her over. Butterfield has pointed out that if she encountered a pastor who believed in some version of Revoice/”gay Christianity” she probably would not have converted because her sin would not have been confronted in a straightforward way. But it’s also true that if she had encountered the stereotypical angry, self-righteous Christian, she would probably not have converted either.
Almost any time I preach against sodomy, I try to add the point that this does not mean Christians should be mean or disrespectful to the lesbian couple next door. Or the gay guy who works in the cubicle in the same office. I do not want my preaching to be used to justify unkindness. We must not compromise on any front – not the truth about sin front, not the culture war front, and not the personal kindness front. There must not be any compromise anywhere.
I have had gays visit my church, including one man for visited for about 9 months, and a lesbian couple who lived next door to a church family and came a few times after being befriended and invited. The man who visited for several months was very obviously gay – there was no hiding it. It just so happened he was visiting at a time when I was preaching a lot of sermons on marriage and sexual topics, including sodomy. He had a wretched background. He had grown up as the son of a Jehovah’s Witness missionary, and his father had terribly abused him. He became a sodomite and an a drunkard. He was a sinner who was sinned against; being a victim of sin in no way excused his own, but it was part of his story. He had just gotten out of rehab when he began visiting our church. One Sunday, after months of coming to church, he told me that he was not going to visit any more. He said, “Everyone in your church has been very friendly to me. The families here are great. But I can never have what they have.” He heard the truth – the truth about the gospel and Christian sexual ethics. He had been treated with personal kindness, even by people who believe his lifestyle deserves the death penalty and leads to eternal hellfire. He did not convert – there was no Butterfield-style happy ending – but I do think we did the right thing.
Our culture is a mess. We obviously have to fight on many fronts to redirect our culture away from the cliff towards which we are speeding. But we also have to master the art of persuasion, which must include making compelling arguments in a context of personal friendliness. There is a place for righteous anger, but anger alone is not going to transform the culture or save the lost.
—
Some of my favorite but lesser known Chesterton quotes:
“The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.”
“I have little doubt that when St. George had killed the dragon he was heartily afraid of the princess.”
“The whole pleasure of marriage is that it is a perpetual crisis.”
“Charity means pardoning the unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all. Hope means hoping when things are hopeless, or it is no virtue at all. And faith means believing the incredible, or it is no virtue at all.”
“Most modern freedom is at root fear. It is not so much that we are too bold to endure rules; it is rather that we are too timid to endure responsibilities.”
“All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive.”
“There is a case for telling the truth; there is a case for avoiding the scandal; but there is no possible defense for the man who tells the scandal, but does not tell the truth.”
“The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half-truth is always the ally of some vice.”
“Truth is sacred; and if you tell the truth too often nobody will believe it.”
“It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.”
“Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice.”
“To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea.”
—
“Civilization has run on ahead of the soul of man, and is producing faster than he can think and give thanks.”
– G. K. Chesterton, Daily News, Feb. 21, 1902
—
“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”
— G. K. Chesterton
—
“By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial—but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.”
— Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
—
It’s common for right-wingers and conservatives to post some nostalgic Americana meme and say, “See, this is what they took from us.” But the reality is that it was not taken from us. We gave it away. We are not victims. We are the cause of our of own decline. There is no one to scapegoat. America was not killed; we have committed suicide. We rebelled against the Almighty; the Almighty judged us.
—
We intuitively know how dangerous and pervasive envy is. Sometimes we are reluctant to share news of our successes or blessings with others because we fear being envied.
—
Adam Smith wrote, “The Wealth of Nations,” not the “Poverty of Nations,” because it is wealth, not poverty that requires explanation. In a fallen world, poverty is the default condition. Wealth and prosperity should never be taken for granted.
—
In debate or discussion is it better to speak first or last? There is the old syaing, ‘he who frames the question wins the debate,” which suggests it is best to speak first. But he who speaks last gets the proverbial “last word.”
—
We have to balance the wisdom of crowds with the madness of crowds.
The wisdom of crowds = if you ask one person the distance from NYC to Boston, they probably won’t get it right, but if you ask a lot of people, the average answer will tend to be close to the truth. It’s the law of social averages.
The madness of crowds = an individual can be rational and sane, but a mob of people can lose its mind and do crazy things. The mob is not at smart or logical as any individual within the mob.
To get wisdom from the crowd, people must be asked anonymously. If it’s not anonymous, all kinds of other factors and incentives come into play. This is a reason why voting or soliciting opinion should be done in private. Observing a process changes the process.
—
“The test of democracy is not whether the people vote, but whether the people rule.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
“Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
Despite widespread corruption in our political system, no is ever held accountable and no one ever gets punished. Actually that’s not quite true. There is one group that gets punished. As Tucker Carlson puts it, “In Washington, the only people who are punished are those who tell the truth.” Indeed. That pretty much sums up our problem.
—
Winston Churchill’s nationalism/patriotism:
“There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England”.
—
The unflinching courage of Clarence Thomas, the greatest living American:
—
The Atlanta Braves made it to the World Series and lost in 1991 (a heartbreaker in the best series ever) and 1992. After the game 6 World Series-clinching victory in 1995, a reporter asked Bobby Cox, “What was the difference this time, you came so close before?”
He replied, “We could have won the ones we lost and we could have lost tonight. It’s just the flip of a coin.”
I always thought that quote pretty much sums up baseball. It’s the one sport where you can do pretty much everything right and it still not work out – or not do things all that well and still have it work in your favor. A perfect pitch can still get a hit. A well hit ball can be inches from a double or a double play. A hard hit ball can be an out, a little dribbler can be an infield single. It’s just the way the Great American Pastime works. Of all sports, it’s the most like life in its combination of skill and randomness.
As a Braves fan, Cox was my all-time favorite manger. He knew how to get the most out of his players. And other than perhaps Billy Martin, he was the best ever at working over the umps. RIP, Bobby Cox.
—
“Under a free system, no one could acquire a monopoly on anything. If you look at economics, and economic history, you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help.”
— Ayn Rand
Is Rand right about this?
—
Proverbs 31 woman + Job 29 man = a Psalm 128 household
—
“How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”
— David in 2 Samuel 6:9
“Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
— Elizabeth in Luke 1:43
“Now as the ark of the Lord came into the City of David, Michal, Saul’s
daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and
whirling before the Lord.”
— 2 Samuel 6:16
“And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb.”
— Luke 1:41
—
Several Bible passages explicitly connect the “fear of the Lord” (a reverent awe, respect, and holy trembling before God’s majesty and holiness) with joy, delight, or rejoicing. This “fear” is not primarily terror but a worshipful response that leads to blessing, wisdom, and gladness. 
Here are some key examples (using ESV or similar translations for clarity):
- Psalm 2:11: “Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.” This pairs reverent fear directly with joyful rejoicing, holding awe and delight together in worship.
- Psalm 112:1: “Praise the LORD! Blessed [or joyful] is the man who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in his commandments!” This follows right after Psalm 111:10 (“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom…”). The structure intentionally links fear of God to joy and delight in obedience.
- Psalm 128:1-4: “Blessed [How joyful] is everyone who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”
Fear of the Lord brings joyful prosperity and family blessing.
Other supporting connections include: - Psalm 147:11: The Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him and hope in his steadfast love.
- Isaiah 11:3 (about the Messiah): “And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.” Even Jesus is described as delighting in this reverent fear.
In biblical thought, the fear of God is the foundation for wisdom (Proverbs 9:10, Psalm 111:10) and leads to a secure, joyful life—contrasted with the insecurity of ignoring God. It produces trembling awe at God’s holiness alongside deep gladness in His grace and goodness.
These themes appear especially in the Psalms and Wisdom literature, showing that true joy flows from rightly relating to God in reverence rather than casual familiarity or rebellion. Many Christian teachers note this as a “fear that brings joy” or a balanced response of awe and delight.
—
If you start a sentence with, “Everyone deserves,” and plan to finish that sentence with anything other than “death and hell,” you are off the rails. The “everyone deserves” mentality breeds selfishness, narcissism, entitlement, and (since in this worldview, no one gets everything they think they deserve) resentment.
God does not owe you anything. The world does not owe you anything. Society at large does not owe you anything.
Yes, it is true that under God’s law, you have certain rights. The US Constitution gives youn certain rights. Your parents, pastor, and others, have obligations to you. But the “everyone deserves” mentality tends to focus on what a person is owed to the exclusion of what is required of them.
—
I asked Grok why Kermit Roosevelt was an anti-Zionist:
Kermit Roosevelt Jr. (also known as “Kim” Roosevelt, 1916–2000), grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt and a key early CIA operative, was a prominent American Arabist who actively opposed the creation of Israel and U.S. support for Zionism. 
His anti-Zionism stemmed primarily from strategic, geopolitical, and cultural convictions rather than personal animosity toward Jews (he expressed some sympathy for Jewish suffering from persecution but prioritized other factors). 
Core Reasons
- U.S. National Interests and Arab Alliances: Roosevelt believed strong U.S. backing for a Jewish state in Palestine would alienate the Arab world, damaging American strategic, military, commercial, and oil interests. He advocated allying with emerging Arab nationalists to counter Soviet influence during the early Cold War and to secure access to Middle Eastern oil. Supporting Zionism, in his view, risked pushing Arabs toward the USSR.
- Arab Presence and Rights in Palestine: In his influential 1946 Harper’s article “The Arabs Live There Too,” he argued that Palestine was not an empty land and that Arabs (who formed the majority) had legitimate claims and long-standing ties there. He saw Zionist ambitions as disregarding this reality.
- Opposition to Partition and Pressure Politics: He viewed the UN Partition Plan (1947) as unjust and driven by effective Zionist lobbying rather than fairness or U.S. interests. In his 1948 pamphlet Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics, he criticized what he saw as undue influence on U.S. policy.
Key Actions
He co-founded and led anti-Zionist/pro-Arab organizations, including: - The Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land (1948) with Virginia Gildersleeve — to lobby Truman and the UN against partition and Israel’s creation.
- The American Friends of the Middle East (AFME, 1951) — a pro-Arab group (secretly backed by the CIA and Aramco) that promoted Arab perspectives and criticized U.S. support for Israel.
These efforts aligned with broader “Arabist” views in the early State Department and CIA, which saw Israel as a liability.
In summary, Roosevelt’s stance was that of a Cold War strategist and regional expert who prioritized long-term U.S.-Arab relations over the establishment of a Jewish homeland. His views were common among certain elite American Protestant Arabists of his era but became less dominant as U.S.-Israel ties strengthened.
—
Declining birth rates are not strictly due to economic or political concerns, but shifting priorities (aka, selfishness and consumerism):
“Now, what I’m about to say next requires some humility on my part as an economist. It’s hard to imagine this turning around without sort of a cultural shift or changes in social norms. So my read, again, with my colleague Phil Levine, we’ve done a lot of work on this. What we suggest is probably the single best explanation, which is like a catchall explanation for why fertility is down in the US and other high-income countries is because of shifting priorities. This isn’t a value statement. This is when you look at the way the more recent cohorts of young adults are choosing to spend their time and money in their twenties and thirties, they’re spending more time and money on establishing their career, on working, on leisure pursuits, and they’re choosing parenthood to a much lesser degree.”
— Melissa Kearney
The collapsing birth rate is a religious issue. It’s a worldview issue. People have had children in the past in far more difficult economic and political circumstances. Even today, people who really want to have children, still have them, despite the hardships. They choose sacrifice and legacy over immediate pleasures. Yes, we could pursue many public policies that would be more pro-family, but this will not solve the problem because even nations that have a “free” healthcare, generous maternity and paternity leave, etc., still have below replacement-level birth rates. This is a faith issue. It’s a moral issue. As a society, we do not have kids today because we do not have virtue.
—
“1.6% of the wealthiest people in NYC pay nearly half of the taxes. If those folks leave, you’re going to have a financial crisis of magnitude of which Mamdani does not understand.”
— Shermichael Singleton, on why demonizing the rich/productive backfires
—
“To be a victim is to be wicked.”
— Jane Jacobs
—
Marxism is not compatible with Western civilization.
Islam is not compatible with Western civilization.
LGBTQ is not compatible with Western civilization.
—
A podcast I did with Josh Haymes on the Christian and his enemies:
—
A post from January 2025:
Kinism and racism violate natural law.
Kinism = the requirement/duty to keep races segregated socially and maritally as a matter of divine obligation
No, there is nothing unnatural (or unlawful) about interracial marriage. Natural marriage requires a man and woman, but race is not built into the natural definition of marriage. Moses did nothing unnatural (or unlawful) when he married a Cushite. It was not unnatural for Jews and Gentiles of various races to share community in local churches in the apostolic era, and its very likely at least some intermarriages came out of those communities. The English, Spanish, French, etc. settlers in the “new world” who married (converted) Amerindians did not sin, and I cannot find any record that anyone at that time in the church even suggested they were sinning or should come under church discipline.
The fact that men and women of different races can reproduce (the act of sex is not intrinsically sterile in such cases) indicates it is not unnatural. The purposes of marriage/sex can be fulfilled in an interracial union.
Of course, the preference to marry within one’s race is just fine. People will always marry according to preference and opportunity. There is nothing unlawful about such preferences and most people do indeed have them. Obviously because interracial marriage usually involves cultural differences, there are prudential considerations. But same-race marriage cannot be made a matter of natural duty as if interracial marriage was automatically and categorically sinful. (Test case: Should the church excommunicate someone who marries a believer of another race? Obviously not.)
—
Steven Crowder sums up some of the problems with Islam:
“Being pro- or anti-Israel doesn’t change the facts about Islam:
-Muslims have killed countless Christians, Jews, and Non-Muslims
-They’ve enslaved millions (including 1M+ Europeans)
-Child marriage is permissible
-Men can marry 4 wives
-Female testimony is worth less than a man’s
-Women MUST wear hijabs
-Muslims used violence to expand Islam every century since it’s founding”
—
Doug Wilson addressed this pretty well with regard to marijuana but not many others have. I have preached and written on it occasionally.
Working out how the category of pharmakeia relates to a text like 1 Timothy 4 is crucial. Paul’s claim that everything God made is good does not mean everything has a lawful use as a food or drug.
The idea that physical substances can become a gateway to the demonic (as anti-sacraments) is not well understood, but it is something Scripture obviously teaches. We can lower our own defenses against the demonic by what we put into our bodies. The whole battle over therapy, SSRIs, psychedelics, etc. forces us to think through the connection between the physical and the spiritual, the brain and the mind, etc., and we still need to do a lot of work in this area.
Perhaps if we had a better sacramental theology, we could better understand demonic counterfeits.
I think the reason the theonomists/reconstructionists missed what pharmakeia is all about because of their tendency towards a narrow biblicism. Obviously when the Torah made witchcraft a capital offense it assumed (a) it’s not just a matter of deception but is really demonic, and (b) they could figure out what it is by observation. But a lot of Reformed people don’t have categories for that.
In the podcast, Will makes some good observations about the revival of new age thinking. In the 1980s and 90s, Christians wrote and taught a lot on the problems with new age thinking, particularly, the Eastern mysticism influences. But the church has not sounded many warnings in more recent years. The rising interest in psychedelics in the cultural mainstream is an aspect of new ageism.
Will also had some great comments on how psychedelics will be marketed to men and women in distinct ways. We need to be aware of the particular ways this will play out for men (the hero’s journey, self-mastery through ordeal) and women (mysticism, health, replacement for SSRIs).
We also need to note the contradictions in the Trump administration – blowing up boats trafficking drugs vs signing the executive order to study psychedelics.
—
“In order to understand better what this means, let us note in the
first place that the majesty and glory of God are incomprehensible. Not
only do we not see God with our eyes, since he is of a spiritual
essence, but when we apply all our sense to know him, we will certainly
be dazzled a hundred times over, before we can even approach him. For
we are too crude and weak. We can only crawl upon the earth, while the
‘heavens of heavens cannot contain him’ (1 Kings 8:27), as the other
passage says. So when we want to approach God, it is certain that we
will not be able to and that he is totally inaccessible to us.
Therefore, he must come down to us when we cannot reach up to him. And
how does he come down? It is not that he changes his place as far as
his essence is concerned, but he must make himself known in a familiar
manner. So when he conforms himself to our smallness, he does it only
insofar as he abases himself. Not that there is change in him, but his
coming down refers to our capacity.
Therefore, consider how God, who from all times has had pity on the
crude capacities of men, has for that very reason come down to them,
since they could not reach up to him. How has he come down? He has
done so in the fashion of men, as if to say: ‘Here am I, and when you
come through these means, it is the same as if I were manifest to you
and you were seeing me with the naked eye’- that is what the ark meant.
It was a means by which God made himself known to the people so they
would be without excuse and could not say: ‘We do not know which way to
begin when we ought to pray to God and honour him. We do not know how
he will be our Protector, and how we will feel his help.’ On the
contrary, the ark was a standing witness that God wanted to dwell in the
midst of the people.
Now let us apply this to ourselves, for we are no more competent than the Jews. Yet we need God to make himself small, so that we can have access to him, otherwise we would be completely shut out. However, he does not make himself so small because he wants his glory to be lessened, but rather he does this out of goodness to lift us up to admire his glory and to adore him with the reverence that he deserves.
When we have access to the preached Word, God speaks in a common and ordinary fashion to us. It is an illustration of his condescension. Hence, the preaching of the Gospel is like God descending to earth in order to seek us. We must not abuse this simplicity of the Word of God by disdaining it. Rather, we must receive it all the more, recognising that he indeed deigns to transfigure himself, so to speak, that we might approach him. He is not content with giving us his Word, but he adds baptism to confirm it. When we are baptised- though only a little water is used- it stands for crucifying our old man, for renewing our souls, and for being united with the angels- but can a little water do
that? The point, of course, is that since God has come down to us (in this symbol), we must go up to him (in faith)….
Nevertheless, in order that we might know that God does not want to frustrate us, and that the signs which he gives us are not frivolous and empty baggage, like toys for little children, it says that God truly dwells between the cherubim. This does not mean that his essence is enclosed in the ark, but that he wishes to display his virtue there for the salvation of his people. Similarly, today in the waters of baptism, it is the same as if the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ poured down from heaven to water our souls and cleanse them from their uncleanness. When we have the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, it is the same as if Jesus Christ were coming down from heaven and making himself our food, so that we could be filled with him. We must not, therefore, take these signs as visible things and figures that are to feed our spiritual senses, but are to realize that God joins his virtue and truth to them, so that the thing and the effect are joined to the figure. We must not put asunder what God has joined together.”
— John Calvin, from his “Sermons on 2 Samuel
—
From Calvin’s “Short Treatise on the Lord’s Supper” (p. 172f), summarizing his view of the real presence:
“We must confess, then, that if the representation which God gives us in the Supper is true, the internal substance of the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs; and as the bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ is communicated to us in order that we may be made partakers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his body and blood, in order that we may possess it fully, and possessing it have part in all his blessings.”
—
I had a very negative view of Holden Caulfield and “Catcher in the Rye” when I read it in high school (or was it junior high?), but this makes some interesting counterpoints:
—
“I believe that our civilization is not only founded on Christianity, but is in its very material and texture Christian. In other words, I believe that, if there had been no Christianity at all, there would now be no such civilization at all.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
Does that mean Fox News is the key to the lone bulwark?
Of course, I don’t disagree with you on where pastors are getting their politics – and it’s part of the problem that I want to address. At least in my own tradition, Presbyterian pastors should be familiar with the political theology of their own confessional standards (Westminster) and teach it to their people. I’m not asking for pastors to be experts, but reasonably competent. Seminaries should teach a required course on political theology. Ordination exams should cover political theology. Etc.
I have not seen anyone explain how classic Reformed theology is going to trickle down to laymen apart from local pastors doing their part (which they did historically – America wouldn’t exist if they hadn’t).
—
Dugin is a Russian propagandist who hates the West, especially America, largely out envy over our hegemony.
—
An old podcast on the “federal vision” view of justification with Grant Von Brimmer:
—
The Bible tells one story about one God and one redeemed people.
—
A contradiction in the Trump administration: waging a war on drugs, including blowing cartel boats out of the water, while also signing an executive order to fund research into psychedelics (= pharmakeia/witchcraft).
—
Good overview of why the Federal Reserve has been disastrous and inevitably centralizes everything, concentrating power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people, while producing the welfare/warfare state:
—
Are progressive’s resorting to bio-engineering to get their agenda accomplished?
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1B88VEaFkq/?mibextid=wwXIfr
—
Socialism is just envy institutionalized in political and economic forms.
—
Vivek’s total dominance in the Ohio governor primary gives you some idea of Nick Fuentes’ real world influence.
You’ll know Fuentes matters when the left starts to weaponize him. Right now, the left focuses a lot more attention on Doug Wilson. So whatever influence Fuentes poses, it’s less than Wilson – you can do the math from there.
I’m sure he has a dedicated fan base. He’s entertaining. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, but he’s usually vile. But this we know: his influence is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. That’s not to say Fuentes’ influence won’t grow – it could. But I don’t even think most of his followers really know what he wants. I don’t think they know when he’s joking and when he’s serious. But he’s nowhere close to being the kind of kingmaker Charlie Kirk became.
I think a lot of people watch/listen for entertainment value, not because they take him seriously. Clicks and views do not automatically translate to real world influence.
I have never thought he was a plant or psy-op, but recent promoting of “accelerationism” has me wondering…
—
“The borders of Islam are always bloody.”
— Sam Huntington
—
“Most of your life is now spent trying to earn enough money to escape the consequences of the civil rights movement.”
— Anonymous
—
Good overview of Marxism:
—
The Sam Allberry revelation is tragic, another black eye for the church.
But it was also very predictable. Coddling sin rather than fighting it always ends in disaster. Denying sinful desires are actually sinful is always going to go badly. The Bible is very clear about same-sex attraction: it is not good, it is not morally neutral, it is a “vile passion,” according to Romans 1:26. Allberry is obviously guilty of great sin, but all those who elevated him to a position of leadership in the church are as well. Sounds like Allberry is repentant (though I wonder to what degree, unless he overhauls his theology of sin and sexuality?), but what about those who put their stamp of approval on him as a leader in the church?
—
The Revoice movement denies a fundamental tenant of Reformed theology: The inclination to sin is sin. The desire to sin is sin.
With the Sam Allberry scandal, it’s time for Revoicers to admit the whole experiment has been a total disaster for the church. Coddling sinful desires rather than mortifying them will always backfired. Redefining sinful inclinations into an “orientation” or an “identity” is utterly foolish. When you play with fire, you eventually get burned. When you keep a dragon around, give him a name, try to restrain him while still feeding him, treating him like a pet rather than an enemy, the dragon eventually turns on you. Dragons must be slain, not domesticated.
—
Pat Stedman on the dating market:
“The more accurate picture of female hypergamy is this:
Top 20% of men (80-100th percentile – most men in this bracket are universally desirable
Next 30% of men (50-80th percentile) – not usually a woman’s first choice in the abstract but satisfying in practice
Further 30% of men (20th-50th percentile) – this is where attraction breaks down. Women choose these men only under economic need or social pressure. Your “betas”. They are at best tolerated by women.
Bottom 20% of men (0-20th percentile) – universally disliked. Under duress the upper portion of these may get mates but they are loveless marriages, lots of contempt.
This is why the conversation breaks down on the topic. The top 20% are the only attractive ones in theory, but the top 50% are in practice, and the top 80% still get women though when women need male provisioning / marriage is a social meta.
But since women don’t need this lower beta cohort anymore we are seeing them fail romantically. Since ~50% are getting married and divorce rates are cratering this tracks. The divorce wave of the 60s through 00s was boomer and gen x women eliminating the beta cohort.”
I think Stedman is giving an accurate picture of the reality today.
Hypergamy used to be about getting the best husband from available options (which were pretty limited).
Hypergamy was constrained by reality.
Today, hypergamy is about a woman getting the kind of man she thinks she “deserves.”
And far too many woman have a vastly overrated sense of their worth.
—
Helen Andrew’s has showed pretty definitively that wokeness = feminization of public life.
That means the only way to reverse it is to send women back home
Women who have no need for men economically are largely pricing themselves out of the dating/marriage market.
Marriage is becoming a luxury good for the top echelon of men
The only way for civilization to survive is for women to be reined in.
And if the church isn’t willing to do that, society at large certainly isn’t
I’ve realized more and more when I go to church on Sundays it’s like taking a time capsule back in time a couple generations – happily married young people, lots of kids, men who lead and wives who are happy about it, etc.
it still exists in bubbles/subcultures, but in the culture at large that world is gone.
And with it, our civilization.
It really doesn’t matter what else we do, if marriage and birth rates continue to crater, it’s game over.
—
If a man’s wife is egalitarian and says leadership should be 50/50 in the marriage, he should take her up on it and accuse her of failing to be a “servant-leader” every time she does not give him his way.
Actually, this is better advice for a man whose wife has been taught male headship is dangerous:
—
“This is our moment of history and our responsibility: not to just to write and talk of far-off ideals, but to struggle for Scriptural and practical means of doing what can be done in a fallen world to see people personally converted and also to see what our salt and light can bring forth in the personal life and the political and the cultural life of this moment of history.”
— Francis Schaeffer
—
“What we learn from History is that no one learns from History.”
— Otto von Bismarck
—
Insofar as classical liberalism sought to be religiously neutral, it had no way to stand up to the forces that destroyed it. In other words, while classical liberalism was very much rooted in a Christian worldview, it was only implicitly Christian, not explicitly Christian — and any institution that is not explicit in its Christian convictions will eventually become anti-Christian. Classical liberalism was always going to morph into modern, secularized liberalism. It contained the seeds of its own destruction from the beginning.
—
“The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed… Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union.”
— Otto von Bismarck
—
Bryan Dawson and I recorded an 1819 podcast on Israel. We deal with biblical Israel, modern Israel, and get into Islam and American policy towards the Middle East a little bit. Bryan’s intro does a great job teeing up the topic:
—
“The praying disciple needs to be taught the necessity of labor and the laboring disciple needs to be taught the necessity of prayer. When our men of devotion become men of diligence and our men of diligence become men of devotion, when there is a union of humble hearts and busy hands, then shall the wonders of the Gospel be spread fruitfully abroad.”
— Thomas Chalmers
—
“White liberals, instead of comparing what has happened to the black family since the liberal welfare state policies of the 1960s were put into practice, compare black families to white families and conclude that the higher rates of broken homes and unwed motherhood among blacks are due to “a legacy of slavery.” But why the large-scale disintegration of the black family should have begun a hundred years after slavery is left unexplained.
Whatever the situation of the black family relative to the white family, in the past or the present, it is clear that broken homes were far more common among blacks at the end of the twentieth century than they were in the middle of that century or at the beginning of that century —even though blacks at the beginning of the twentieth century were just one generation out of slavery. The widespread and casual abandonment of their children, and of the women who bore them, by black fathers in the ghettos of the late twentieth century was in fact a painfully ironic contrast with what had happened in the immediate aftermath of slavery a hundred years earlier, when observers in the South reported desperate efforts of freed blacks to find family members who had been separated from them during the era of slavery.”
— Thomas Sowell, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” explaining that the welfare state did what Jim Crow could not, in eviscerating the black family
—
“Politics is not an exact science…Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”
— Otto von Bismarck
—
Many evangelicals are emphasizing that women can be leaders too. Question for those teaching this: when women lead, are they supposed to be servant-leaders?
—
A truly Christian nationalism will never be utopian because the Christian faith teaches men will always be sinners in this life.
—
“The class distinctions that we are used to are fading away. Replacing them is a new distinction: life versus anti-life. The latter is retreating into an online world, the former is engaged with the real; the latter is self-protective, the former willing to take risks; the latter is downwardly mobile, the former aspirational.”
— Marilyn Simon
—
Chesterton wrote, “The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues…. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
Chesterton explained wokeness a full century before it happened. The essence of wokeness is “the old Christian virtues gone mad.” Wokeness is the weaponization of Christian virtues against the Christian faith itself. Wokeness is the counterfeiting of Christian virtue, it’s anti-Christian vice cloaked and disguised in Christian garb.
—
“We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening mob with the news that grass is green.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
“Modern emancipation has really been a new persecution of the Common Man. If it has emancipated anybody, it has in rather narrow ways emancipated the Uncommon Man. It has given an eccentric sort of liberty to some of the hobbies of the wealthy and to some of the lunacies of those who call themselves cultured. The only thing that it has forbidden is common sense, as it would have been understood by the common people.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
“Christianity does appeal to a solid truth outside itself; to something which is in that sense external as well as eternal. It does declare that things are really there; or in other words that things are really things. In this Christianity is at one with common sense; but all religious history shows that this common sense perishes except where there is Christianity to preserve it.”
— G.K. Chesterton
—
We Christians cling to God not only for salvation, but for sanity.
—
“The only thing surprising about common sense is how uncommon it has become.”
— G. K. Chesterton
—
“Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. This has been always the instinct of Christendom, and especially the instinct of Christian art. Remember how Fra Angelico represented all his angels, not only as birds, but almost as butterflies. Remember how the most earnest mediaeval art was full of light and fluttering draperies, of quick and capering feet. It was the one thing that the modern Pre-raphaelites could not imitate in the real Pre-raphaelites. Burne-Jones could never recover the deep levity of the Middle Ages. In the old Christian pictures the sky over every figure is like a blue or gold parachute. Every figure seems ready to fly up and float about in the heavens. The tattered cloak of the beggar will bear him up like the rayed plumes of the angels. But the kings in their heavy gold and the proud in their robes of purple will all of their nature sink downwards, for pride cannot rise to levity or levitation. Pride is the downward drag of all things into an easy solemnity. One “settles down” into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay self-forgetfulness. A man “falls” into a brown study; he reaches up at a blue sky. Seriousness is not a virtue. It would be a heresy, but a much more sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a vice. It is really a natural trend or lapse into taking one’s self gravely, because it is the easiest thing to do. It is much easier to write a good Times leading article than a good joke in Punch. For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
“There are no uninteresting things, only uninterested people.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
“There is the great lesson of ‘Beauty and the Beast,’ that a thing must be loved before it is lovable.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
“There are two ways to get enough. One is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
You are what you read. Choose your books as carefully as you choose your friends.
—
“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
― G.K. Chesterton
—
Teddy Roosevelt on facing Islam/war in the Middle East:
“Prayer is our greatest weapon in these or any other times. Best we not send our boys across the sea to face the heathen hordes lest we have a nation at home one in prayer. If history teaches us nothing else, let us at least remember what the Byzantines learned, what the Crusaders learned, and what the French learned: you cannot face the dread terror of Islam in mere human strength.
When the quietude of the desert has been stirred, let all Christian men and women turn to the sovereign Lord. Let all Christian men and women turn to Him in holy seasons of prayer.”
—
“It is the first duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor in holy fear.”
— George Washington
—
“Long before Americans had a nation or a constitution, we first had a culture, a character, and a creed. Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried within us the rarest of gifts: moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom from across the sea. For nearly two centuries before the revolution, this land was settled and forged by men, women who bore in their souls the blood and noble spirit of the British. Here on a wild and untamed continent, they set loose the ancient English love of liberty and Great Britain’s distinctive sense of glory, destiny, and pride, and that’s what it is: glory, destiny, and pride.
The American patriots who pledged their lives to independence in 1776 were the heirs to this majestic inheritance. Their veins ran with Anglo-Saxon courage. Their hearts beat with an English faith in standing firm for what is right, good, and true.”
— Donald Trump
—
There are some even within the Christian nationalism camp who want preachers to stick to “spiritual” themes and not meddle in politics. Pastoring is complicated enough, the argument goes, and pastors are not political experts, so pastors should just stay in their lane.
Set aside how unReformed this is, compared to traditional Protestant practice, and how unAmerican it is, compared to our nation’s founding era. Set aside the fact that much of the Bible deals with political and economic issues. Set aside the fact that our supposed “expert class” and “ruling class” have completely failed us in most areas and obviously can’t fix what’s wrong.
Here’s my question: How is the ordinary Christian laymen supposed to get his political theology? From reading 400 page books in all his spare time? From watching Fox News after he puts the kids to bed, or overhearing CNN while waiting in the airport to catch a flight for his next business trip? Is he supposed to listen to podcasts while running the kids to Little League practice and piano lessons?
Practically speaking, if Christians are going to be informed and grounded politically, they absolutely must hear from their pastors on these topics. The pulpit is still the prow that guides the culture. Christian people instinctively look to their pastors for guidance is many areas of life. True, some pastors are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Some are lacking in wisdom. Some are sincere but poorly informed themselves. All the more reason to insist on a trained and qualified pastorate. But pastors, for better or worse, are going to continue to be leaders for Christians in general. I would argue one reason we are in the mess we are in is precisely because America’s conservative/traditional pastors went politically silent for most of the 20th century.
If pastors refuse to do political discipleship, the world will be glad to fill that void. And that’s what has happened to large segments of evangelicalism.
—
“Communism is the scavenger of decaying civilizations. It makes its way into a country and into a culture, only when that culture begins to rot from the inside.”
— Fulton J. Sheen
—
“Do I believe women shouldn’t get an education? Of course not, I’ve never said otherwise. Of my three daughters, one has a bachelor’s degree, another went to trade school, and the youngest currently attends college. I also think they should work before they have children to raise capital for their families. I have no idea where this garbage comes from.
Now, do I believe women should have indefinite careers in the workplace? Not if you start having children. I think it’s best for your children if a mom stays home to raise them. I also think that’s a proven strategy for happy marriages and capital preservation. Think otherwise…have at it.
I do believe young women are more susceptible to earning endless useless college degrees than young men. This is because the system is rigged to lure young women into stacking student loan debt in college degrees that aren’t economically viable. This is why colleges are populated at a 60% rate for females and are heavily weighted toward uneconomic degree programs. This isn’t just my opinion; the point will be proved over the next few years as DEI and HR departments and even many soft STEM jobs disappear into the AI abyss.”
— Garrett Craw
—
A couple recent podcasts I did with Matt Letourneau on our church’s “Building on the Promises” campaign:
https://youtu.be/33u6RIY8sDA?si=G7hEZRN3yeYV1NaQ
—
“Our society is clearly disintegrating, so what should be our response? Most of us can’t do anything to stop political assassination attempts, and other than protesting against abortion and unjust wars and other evils, we can’t stop those, either. But we can live lives that strengthen our society in small but real ways, by doing our jobs well, by being courteous and helpful to our neighbors, and by building strong families. If nothing else, these small acts of excellence and caring can be witnesses to the wider world that apathy is a societal cancer and should be resisted.”
— Eric Sammons
—
“2 things that are true at the same time:
- Candace Owens and others who have been ruthlessly condemning and mocking Erika Kirk are wrong and should stop. The conspiracy theories about Mrs. Kirk are nonsense. It is wicked to treat a widow this way.
- Erika Kirk should pass the mantle of leadership to a godly man and return home to care for her children and household. If America is going to come to a turning point, it will happen when men lead and women follow. It will happen when we return to God’s order for life. We will not get revival while disobeying God’s design.”
— Joseph Spurgeon
—
It’s common to accuse pastors of not being very good at politics. Many pastors either refuse to speak to the political, or they do so badly/foolishly. I think that’s probably an accurate assessment today. But let’s face it: Politicians are not very good at politics either.
—
Matt Walsh on the end of rock music:
An interesting development in American pop culture: Rock music and late night comedy used to thrive on pushing back on the “the man,” the establishment, the powers that be.
But with the election of Clinton, and then especially Obama, all that ended. With the Clintons, the hippie counter-culture became the ruling class. With Obama, a black progressive in office, people were no longer allowed to mock or push back on the powers in charge. Rock had already started dying in the Clinton era; the Obama era basically killed comedy.
Now we have degenerate rap music celebrating sexual perversion and urban violence. And late night tv is more cringy than comic.
Rick Beato gives an alternative explanation, based more on economics and the loss of locally owned/operated radio stations, here: https://youtu.be/reesdiAbvk4?si=OHP6kDTuiyWf5ylb
—
“Are we yet aware of the danger that in the Middle East the United Nations may come to be regarded and mistrusted and hated as the guardian of the New World Order-the New Age trappings for the old Humanistic conspiracy of Left and Right together? The danger of Russia and the United States is the seen danger, and a grave one it is. Seen, it must in time be settled by peace or war. The danger of Orient versus Occident — of Islamic culture versus Christian culture — seems as yet unseen. That could be ruinous. We may well succumb to it from not seeing. We must not assume in the days ahead that the crisis in the Middle East can be solved through military alliances, political connivance, or strategic initiative. Beware of the politicians or the coalitions that propose such a solution-they may be fairly regarded, whether from the Left or the Right as a part of the same old entrenched interests that have stood against the Christian faith and have fought for a mechanical imposition of a new age or a new world order since the time of the Fall.”
— Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, in 1949
—
“Religion is the solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.”
— Gouverneur Morris
—
“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God. These duties are, internally, love and adoration: externally, devotion and obedience; therefore provision should be made for maintaining divine worship as well as education. But each one has a right to entire liberty as to religious opinions, for religion is the relation between God and man; therefore it is not within the reach of human authority.”
— Gouverneur Morris
—
“Liberty and justice simply cannot be had apart from the gracious influences of a righteous people. A righteous people simply cannot exist apart from the aspiration to liberty and justice. The Christian religion and its incumbent morality is tied to the cause of freedom with a Gordian knot; loose one from the other and both are sent asunder.”
— Gouverneur Morris
—
The scary thing about would-be Trump assassin Cole Thomas Allen’s manifesto is that it reads like standard Democrat talking points and typical MSM propaganda.
—
Contrary to Tucker Carlson, the Jews are not the bad guys in the book of Esther.
Contrary to Franklin Graham, the Persians are not the bad guys in the book of Esther.
—
“The fundamental problem for this nation is that the Democrats have internalized that only they are virtuous and all power exercised outside of their control is illegitimate. Historically, when groups do that, it ends badly for everyone. From Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot, when a party cannot love its nation and people unless it rules them, it ends badly for everyone. The Democrats are headed in that trajectory. Again, you can say the GOP provokes violence or Trump says awful things, but the bullets are all going from left to right.”
— Erick Erickson
—
“Encouraging Erika Kirk to go home and raise her children is NOT being unkind. It’s being biblical.
It’s where God wants her to be. Her children NEED a full-time mother. This is what’s best for Erika and her children. All true believers should understand this if they study God’s Word.”
— The Transformed Wife
—
The question, “Should America be white?” has been debated lately (e.g., Reformation Red Pill podcast).
The “should” implies moral obligation. Where does moral obligation come from? God has obviously not commanded, “America shall be white,” so what are we talking about here?
First, there’s no question America used to be much more majority white than she is today. This is because America was founded and formed by white Europeans, mostly British, who came here to form a new new nation.
Whites, like all humans, have a duty under the creation mandate, to be fruitful and multiply. That means marriage and children. If whites in America had been better at fulfilling the creation mandate, America would still be a manily white nation. But white Americans (like so many other nations) have allowed their birth rates to fall well below replacement level. Stack on top of that 60 million+ abortions, resulting in the murder of lots and lots of white babies, and the demographic picture for white Americans is bleak. But it’s all largely self-inflicted.
Second, it has to be recognized that America has a much more complicated racial history than many other nations. The Amerindians were already here when white settlers arrived and began building a new nation. Millions of blacks were imported as slaves. So America was never going to be monoracial the way some other nations have been. We were multiracial from the outset. But whites would still be a solid majority into the future if it were not for another major issue: immigration. Early in American history, really up until the Hart-Celler Acts of 1965, most American immigrants were white. They brought some measure of ethnic and religious diversity (eg, Roman Catholics), but not racial diversity. America was founded as a Protestant nation of Western Europeans, but we added Romans Catholics in particular in huge numbers. However, particularly in the last couple generations, we have had a huge influx on non-white immigrants, especially Hindus and Muslims. Many of these immigrants have been able to assimilate to a reasonable degree. But many have not. Add in things like Reagan’s amnesty policy, Obama’s explicit efforts to de-whiten America, and Biden’s disastrous open borders policy, and immigration, especially illegal immigration (but also legal to an extent), has produced collapse of the historic white majority. The levels of immigration into America have contributed heavily to the erosion of our historic Protestant-shaped culture. While most on the right would struggle to answer the question, “Should America be mostly white?” question in the affirmative, the left has no problem answering the question, “Should America be majority non-white?’ in the affirmative. The left (in white leftists) believe that having whites as a minority in a country they built is a good thing, a sign of our nation evolving into something better.
If America had followed rational, sane immigration policy aimed preserving the core of American culture and identity, we would be a much whiter nation than we are today. We would also a be a happier, more stable, more prosperous nation.
So I don’t think the question, “Should America be a mostly white nation?” is the correct question to ask. It would be much better to say that if American whites had followed God’s design (the creation mandate) and if our nation’s rulers had formulated a wise and coherent immigration policy that serves their own people, America would have remained much more white than she is today. The obligation is not to whiteness per se; the obligation is to the creation mandate and national interest.
—
“Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provides something.”
— Chris Rock
—
A typical Hallmark card a husband gives to his wife for her birthday will more or less communicate to her what the Bible says he should – I love you, I cherish you, etc. But the typical Hallmark card a wife would give to her husband does not communicate to him what the Bible says she should – I respect you, I joyfully submit to you, etc. That about sums up our cultural problem with marriage…
—
The Crusaders sought to reclaim the Middle East from Islam for centuries in the Middle Ages and came away with little to show for it.
Napoleon tried to conquer the Middle East in the 19th century and failed.
The British tried in the 20th century. Pax Britannia, which worked so well in other places, failed in the Middle East so they handed much of it over to the UN.
Russia has tried incursions into the Middle East on many occasions, always failing.
The US has tried to manage the Middle East in the 20th and 21st century. We aren’t doing any better than others who have tried to pacify the region.
—
Short term thinking leads to long term misery.
—
Andrew Isker makes an interesting point about the most recent Trump would-be asssin:
“I am going to present a theory here, I could be way off, or could be dead on.
This guy apparently went to/was raised in a URC church in Pasadena, CA.
John Earnest is doing life plus 30 for an attack on a synagogue resulting in the death of an elderly woman and wounding three others, including a child. He attended an OPC church in Escondido, CA.
Reportedly both their fathers were elders in their respective churches, too.
Both churches are apparently very R2K, a particular Calvinist theology that eschews any involvement of the church in the political that has its base of operations in Westminster Seminary, Escondido, CA.
It would be very unfair to blame this theology for their violent extremism. Even bad theology like this is not responsible for the crimes of individuals. Lest anyone say I am blaming David VanDrunen or R. Scott Clark for these things, I am not.
What I am saying is that it is helpless to do anything about it.
It would be more fair to say that these particular types of churches draw fairly high-IQ congregants, and both were bright young men without much going for them which leaves them wide open for radicalization.
A church totally disinterested in discipling them in this area of life gave them no off-ramp for de-radicalization. Their fundamental theology being totally hands off meant these young men were left to their own devices.
One kids’ brain got fried by 4Chan and the other by Reddit and Bluesky.
The families of both young men were completely shocked that they would do this. It was all totally out of the blue for them. Which leads one to think this is nothing either ever spoke with their respective son about. And if the temporal kingdom is radically separate from the spiritual kingdom, why would they? These are “things of this world.”
So each of them went down dark paths completely in secret until they did the unspeakable.
This is my theory. Maybe I am wrong. But I don’t think I am.”
This is exactly what I’ve been saying for a long time now. When the church fails to do political discipleship, the world fills that void.
—
The US Constitution does not govern the people. It governs the people who govern the people.
—
Progressives recognizing that the Bible is incompatible with their religion:
—
I asked Grok if John Lightfoot believed Romans 11:25 teaches a future conversion of Israel:
“No, John Lightfoot (1602–1675) did not believe in a future national or mass conversion of Israel (i.e., a latter-days “calling” or restoration of the whole Jewish nation). 
He explicitly opposed the idea, which was popular among some of his contemporaries (including certain millenarians). In his writings he argued that the Jews had forfeited their special privileges by rejecting Christ and the gospel with greater light than the Gentiles ever had, sinning in a way that exceeded even the heathen’s rejection of God. He compared persistent Jewish unbelief to the “antichristian spirit” of Rome, which he expected to end in judgment/perdition rather than wholesale conversion. While he allowed that “numerous multitudes” of Jews might be saved individually over time (like Protestant nations breaking from Rome), he rejected any expectation of a general or universal national turning. 
Lightfoot tied this directly to his reading of Romans 11. He insisted the chapter’s whole drift is not to promise a future universal calling of the Jews, but to prove they were not wholly cast off—there remains “a remnant according to the election of grace” (v. 5). The apostle is answering “Hath God cast away his people?” by pointing to the present-day remnant (including himself), not predicting a later mass conversion of the whole nation. He even noted that the covenant that once specially bound Israel had been broken (referencing Zechariah 11), so any supposed future national restoration lacked a covenantal basis. 
On Romans 11:25 specifically (“blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”): Lightfoot did not treat this as a prophecy awaiting fulfillment long after his own time or in a future golden age of Jewish conversion. Instead, he saw the “mystery” as the partial/severally (by parts, at different times) blindness that had already come upon Israel: first the ten tribes through idolatry, later the two tribes through traditions. This blindness was not total, and the reserved remnant of “Israel” (both tribes) was being called together with the Gentiles in the apostolic age, forming one body. The “fulness of the Gentiles” and the ingathering of that remnant were therefore first-century realities—the gospel was preached to both scattered Israelites and Jews, and the elect flock was gathered before Jerusalem’s destruction. 
He linked this to the events leading up to (and culminating in) A.D. 70. In his comments on related passages (e.g., Luke 21:24 and the “times of the Gentiles”), he emphasized that the Olivet Discourse (including the fall of Jerusalem) was fulfilled within “this generation,” and he criticized interpretations that postponed the related “fulness” or “times” beyond that horizon. While he was cautious about speculating on any post-70 “restoration” of Jerusalem or exact timing of the “times of the Gentiles” relative to the end of the world, his overall framework placed the mystery of Romans 11:25 in the apostolic era and the events of 70 A.D., not in a still-future national conversion. 
In short: Lightfoot was a strong opponent of the “future conversion of the Jews” doctrine and read Romans 11:25 as describing what was happening in the first century (remnant + Gentiles forming the church), with the old covenant order ending in the events of 70 A.D. His view was consistent with an emphasis on the present remnant and the breaking of the old covenant rather than any latter-day national restoration.”
Here is Grok on Richard Baxter’s view:
“Richard Baxter (1615–1691) did not believe in a special future national conversion or restoration of ethnic Israel/Jews as a distinct people with a privileged role (e.g., a literal millennial reign centered in Jerusalem). He strongly opposed this view, which was held by various millenarians and Judeo-centric interpreters of his time, and he wrote against it explicitly in his later work The Glorious Kingdom of Christ (1691). 
Baxter argued that Romans 11 had already been fulfilled in the inclusion of believing Gentiles as children of Abraham and the ingathering of the elect remnant from Israel in the apostolic era. He rejected expectations of a future mass “calling” or return to the land that would set Jews apart again religiously or nationally. Once converted, Jews would cease to be “Jews” in a religious sense (and, over generations, even in a natural/ethnic sense), becoming part of the one people of God with no ongoing distinction. He viewed literalist hopes for a Jewish monarchy in Jerusalem or a 1,000-year earthly reign involving restored Jews as erroneous, “the grossest feigners,” and even a form of “setting up Judaism.” Such ideas dishonored Christ’s present and everlasting kingdom. 
Baxter criticized overly literal readings of prophecy that ignored the spiritual fulfillment in the church (the “Israel of God”) and raised practical objections, such as displacing current inhabitants of Palestine. He engaged in debate with figures like Increase Mather (who defended future Jewish conversion) and Thomas Beverley. His framework emphasized Christ’s kingdom as a present spiritual reality (a “Christian Empire”) extending to the new heavens and earth, not confined to a future Jewish-centered millennium. 
On Romans 11:25 specifically: Baxter did not see the “blindness in part… until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” as pointing to a still-future mass conversion of ethnic Israel after a Gentile fulness. Instead, consistent with his broader eschatology, he understood the chapter as affirming that God had not cast off His people entirely—there had always been a remnant, and the mystery involved the inclusion of Gentiles alongside that remnant into one body. The “fulness” language described the ongoing spread of the gospel and the completion of God’s elect in the present age, not a dramatic end-times reversal for the Jewish nation as a whole. He tied this to the rejection of any special post-apostolic national restoration. 
In summary, like John Lightfoot, Baxter was a notable opponent of the “future conversion of the Jews” doctrine popular among some Puritans and millenarians. He read Romans 11 through the lens of the church as the fulfillment of Israel’s promises, with no expectation of a distinct national turning or restoration still to come. His views reflect a postmillennial-leaning or amillennial emphasis on Christ’s ongoing kingdom rather than futurist literalism.”
—
A flaw with the “Israel is behind everything bad” thesis: The progressive left has been anti-Israel (and usually pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas) for a long time.
—
People inevitably turn themselves into products on social media. You are turning yourself into a brand that you have to manage.
People often make themselves way too vulnerable on social media. It’s a performance. It’s offering yourself up to the online marketplace.
—
Porn has transformed the way young people look at sex. Women objectify themselves while simultaneously finding sex very scary. Men have completely screwed up and unrealistic expectations about female sexuality.
—
Don’t tell the internet everything you’re feeling.
—
Dispensationalism is inherently pessimistic. “We lose down here,” as John MacArthur said. In Dispensationalism, every dispensation has to end in failure. So the church will fail in her mission of necessity. Things will get worse and worse until we get raptured out.
And while Dispensationalism is philosemitic, on the Dispensational scheme, millions of Jews will go through the Great Tribulation, resulting in their massive slaughter. Not exactly a rosy picture for the Jews.
It’s just strange that Dispensationalism ever became so popular. It’s a wildly complex, “connect the random dots” kind of theological system.
Because Dispensationalism has been so discredited at the academic level,I think it will continue to die out. It will largely go away with the Boomers. Interestingly, when Steve Deace wanted to interview a dispensationalist on his show recently, he had an octagenarian on to represent Dispensationalism. That’s probably fitting.
Dispensationalism’s errors go far beyond its eschatology. It gave us the no-lordship “carnal Christian” theory, especially popularized by Zane Hodges, which makes perseverance and obedience unnecessary to salvation. Insofar as some Dispensationalists have actually promoted the antinomian “once saved, always saved” view, it really is heretical. Other dispensationalists have taught that Jews are saved apart from faith in Christ simple because they are Jews. I do not consider most dispensationalists heretics, but some certainly have been.
—
One thing you’ll never see is an old pickup truck parked in front of a therapist’s office.
—
The oak does not panic at the first sign of winter. It has seen the snow many times before.
—
Great lyrics from a hymn we sang recently at TPC – this is Christendom in a nutshell, with Christ’s blessing resting upon the nation, the city, and the families of a people:
“O blest the land, the city blest,
Where Christ the ruler is confessed!
O peaceful hearts and happy homes
To whom this King in triumph comes!”
—
A podcast I did with Bo Cogbill on headcoverings:
TPC Pastor's Page 