Letters of a Junish Sort

A Reasonable Distinction, But . . .

Me, staying current with all the latest news . . .

“Dave Rubin and Dylan Mulvaney are not really on opposite sides of this confusion, in other words.” I think this is a great example of Christians needing to differentiate between position and direction. Both are in a similar position, but their vectors are entirely different.


Ian, I think that is quite a reasonable distinction when talking about individuals. But you also have to take into account the position of society, and the vector of society. Normalizing homosexual behavior via things like Rubin’s “marriage,” even when he is not being one of the outlandish weirdos, is all one vector.

A North Carolina Church Recommendation

In response to your suggestion to crowd source a solution. My wife and I have been members at Resurrection OPC in Matthews, NC since 2015. We are about five minutes from Christ Covenant. I would offer our congregation up as an additional place to visit and worship at should you be willing to send this to your reader. We have roughly 275 members and are a smaller option to Christ Covenants 1000+ members and I would propose we offer more of what she is looking for. I am happy to connect with them if they have the interest.

Best regards,


Eric, thanks.

Rush and North

I have not (yet) read Mere Christendom, but what I have gathered from your other writings is that you are generally of Rushdoony’s school of thought when it comes to the Constitution, and take a position that it is a Christian document composed by a Christian assembly.

This was my tentative position, but reading era documents and enlightenment philosophy, the two seemed far more akin than anything Biblical. When I read Gary North’s Political Polytheism, he finally said what I’d had a hunch of: The Constitution is really an anti-Christian document.

My question is, have you read Appendix B of North’s Political Polytheism on “Rushdoony and the Constitution?” From the perspective of a layman such as myself, he seems to thoroughly break down Rushdoony’s (and what seems to be your) view of the Constitution. If you have read it, could you at least briefly interact with it? If not, I highly recommend the read.

Thank you!


Jonathan, yes, I have read North on this, but it has been many years. This is one of those issues where I think everybody has a point. I believe the Constitution is a profoundly conservative document, drafted and adopted in a deeply Christian society. I also believe that the Founders left a few doors unlocked that should have been locked, and perhaps a few of them did it on purpose.

Churches and Pandemic Forgiveness

This question arises out of the conversation about pandemic amnesty generated first with the article in The Atlantic, then the article in CT, and your recent post, “CT and a Pandemic Amnesty”. Would you please address how best, if there is a “best,” to request that our personal church leadership take up this subject, particularly if they don’t show signs of being interested in doing so? Some sessions and pastors are not eager to look backward, evaluate their mistakes and ask their congregations for forgiveness, and make such a pledge as you articulated not to overstep their authority in the future. If the church is otherwise healthy and thoroughly Bible-centered, and worth remaining committed to, but the leadership is more content with a “well, we did the best we could under the circumstances” resting place, do congregants have a duty to press for a deeper analysis than this?

Thank you.


Sarah, with such a church as you describe, otherwise healthy, but where a request for forgiveness would go a long way, I would make a formal request of the session that they address this issue on the record. If they do so inadequately, it sounds like you should let love cover it. At the same time, this should be a question you ask of any future elder candidates. I think you should keep it an issue without making it a contentious issue.

The argument for amnesty sounds a bit like a backyard sibling squabble along the lines of, “Shut up, shut up! You have to forgive me and don’t tell Mom!” But at least there’s a whiff of admission of wrongdoing in that. Any word of counsel for those of us dealing with friends and family who haven’t come even that far and still “believe the science”? They weren’t the apostles of the lies, but they were ardent disciples, and they just can’t seem to let go of that faith.


Kyriosity, for folks like that, I would honestly just let it ride. I believe that as time goes on, and more and more facts come out, the time will come when many people like that will finally acknowledge the truth. Just love them in the meantime.

In Your Face

I am a medical professional in a large, academic hospital. On June 1st, a rainbow-colored “Happy Pride!” banner was hung at the entrance to the hospital cafeteria. I’ve considered writing HR concerning my objection to this banner. After all, hanging a “Christ is Lord” banner over the doors would be out of the question for this “secular” organization, so why is a pride banner appropriate? These kinds of concerns raised to HR should (operative word) remain confidential, but when such a sensitive subject is raised in the current climate, I don’t think confidentiality is guaranteed. Is it worth the potential backfire on my reputation? My wife is a respected physician at this facility, so any negative consequences for speaking out will almost certainly affect her as well. Should I maintain silent objection, understanding that a non-Christian organization will behave like a non-Christian organization? Am I a public atheist if I say nothing and only object in the privacy of other Christians and my mind? How should I wisely navigate the situation?


Mitch, in such a circumstance, I don’t think you have a moral obligation necessarily to raise an objection about the cafeteria banner. You do have a moral obligation not to be a participant when it comes to demands that are placed on you—which it eventually will. But when that demand comes, you don’t want your resistance to appear suddenly “out of the blue,” and so it is possible that a judicious letter to HR could serve this purpose. But you know the circumstances best.


I’m an enthusiast subscriber to the Canon+ app. Thanks to you and your crew for all the rich resources posted there. But this I have against you (see what I did there): the posted sermons from your pulpit and Toby’s just stop at Easter. Nothing’s been posted on the app since then (full disclosure: they are posted on YouTube). Why is this?


Michael, beats me. Checking into it.

When Sin Starts

Thanks for your article. I’m not quite clear on your distinction between “sin” and “a sin.” Our compromised desires are sin, but not necessarily a sin. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you using these to distinguish between original and actual sin (as the PCA AIC Study Committee Report seems to [p.10, lines 5–])? Later in your post, you refer to our compromised desires as “iniquities,” which would seem to contradict your earlier point above. What is the substantial difference between sin and a sin?

A second question I have concerns your description of Christ’s impeccability. It seems that, according to the hypostatic union, Christ’s impeccability is established by something inherent in or essential to Christ himself (something like Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 318). If that’s the case, these bones of which you speak would be cased in admantium. Here Aquinas rejects even the tinders of sin in Christ (ST III, q. 15, a. 2). Would you say that Christ experienced temptation by virtue of a force arising within him or pressure coming in from without?

These are more technical questions, but I hope they are received as they are intended to be—fair-minded questions about a very difficult issue.


Brittain, Christ’s temptations did not arise from anything sinful within. They came from without, the way temptation came to the first Adam. But they did not come to a block of wood, but rather to a nature that felt the force of the temptation. The illustration of the bones is simply an illustration. Scripture cannot be broken, and so Christ’s bones will not be broken. But with regard to their nature, His bones were just like ours, which can be broken. They were breakable . . . in another sense.

With regard to your first question, I am simply distinguishing the condition of being fallen, which is a sinful condition, and the action of owning or embracing a particular sin, which would be “a sin.” My susceptibility to such things is sinful, but not sinning. Here is a link to an article a friend sent to me on delectatio morosa that may help.

You Idahoans

I thought you Idahoans might appreciate this:


Laurel, yeah, well, other states like Connecticut talk a big game, but . . .

The Perennial Paedo Question

I want to give you my sincerest thanks for your ministry and work. I’ve seen my family grow in affection for Jesus immensely since we got the Canon Press app, and I thank Christ for all of it!

Over the last year I’ve been learning about paedobaptism through Canon and other resources and I’m convicted to baptize my kids. But I currently attend, and am a deacon at, a fairly healthy church in the A29 network that is credobaptist. After several meetings and conversations,the Elders are being friendly in regards to my new position, but unwilling to baptize my two youngest children. My three kids are under 5. How open handed is this issue? Is this a potential Paul and Barnabas split opportunity? I want to act on conviction but also display and walk out Christian unity.

In my most recent conversation,however, I was told that you were regarded as a heretic, and basically anyone who believes in Theonomy is in a cult. I love these men and have been blessed by them for the last 5 years we’ve been at this church. I’m struggling with how to walk this out and lead my family in a Christ honoring way. Thanks for the help.

In Christ,


Justin, find out what they would think if you had your youngest baptized elsewhere. Would they provide a letter for you to that minister, saying that you were a member in good standing, that they could not in good conscience baptize anyone so young, but that they would continue to provide pastoral care, etc. If they would do so, then your remaining challenge would be the Lord’s Supper.

The charge that anyone who holds to theonomy is in a cult is more reckless, however, and more problematic. It indicates that they are giving pastoral advice based on pretty thin research. That kind of thing will prove problematic for you.

The Etymology of Truth

Victor Davis Hanson recently reflected on the Greek word for truth, αλήθεια, transliterated alìthea, a- without; lìthea, that which causes oblivion, forgetfulness.

The etymology for the Greek word for truth is something which is without oblivion, decidedly not forgetful. It’s profound to hear that nuance in Jesus’ declaration in John 8:32. When our “truth-telling” institutions have been so captured by corporate interests and Mammon-oriented motivations that they promote forgetfulness as an ultimate good, we’re in trouble as a society. And the Church lacks the prophetic chutzpa to tell them that’s what they’ve become, and agrees with them that forgetfulness is the path we should seek. But that doesn’t change the Truth!

“They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying ‘Peace, peace’ when there is no peace.” The whole of Jeremiah 7 & 8 feels like it could have been written yesterday!


Michelle, amen. And thank you.

Second Time Gets It

Pastor Wilson, because of the Prolegomena to last week’s letters, I thought I would try one more time . . . Re: “The Sinkhole of Secularism”—Monday, May 8, 2023

“The Sinkhole of Secularism” was another masterpiece . . . Doug Wilson in rare form . . . again, especially once you really got going toward the middle or so, leading up to your knockout punches toward the end. Because I realize your solid commitment to the pure historical/Biblical Gospel and Jesus Christ, I inwardly rejoiced when you recounted your “cultural” long-term history from Francis Schaeffer, Rushdoony, and others . . . and praise the Lord that you “got it” from the beginning—and held firm all the way through and didn’t have a glass jaw . . . and still don’t!

Pastor Wilson, I had a dream . . .

Doug Wilson and John Piper as Pastors/Elders together in the same local congregation/church.

None of the hard-edged angularities or fervor of your individual beliefs or convictions were abated.

You both preached the word and led the congregation . . . each with your various hard edges and hard angles in all vigor, courage, frankness, manliness, but most of all in love and meekness and harmony in the unity of the Spirit, and in the bonds of peace in Christ. Both of you serving as Pastors/Elders at the same local church in robust, manly, Christian brotherly love as the oil flowing down from Aaron’s beard. The church was alive with the Holy Spirit in power and love . . . then I woke up.

. . . and it all began to evaporated as soon as I tried to recall the specific details of how it all worked so harmoniously.

I would really like to see your comments on my “impossible?” dream, Sir.

Best Regards,


Robert, thanks for all the kind words. And sometimes real unity is best maintained when you don’t have to make practical decisions together on an almost daily basis.

First Order Heresy?

In a recently response to a question, you said: “I believe egalitarianism is a first tier heresy. Women’s ordination is just one manifestation of it.” Would that mean you would place egalitarianism in the same rank as denying the deity of Christ? I agree it is a significant error, but I tended to place it as second tier, because first tier issues would be ones where you cannot in good conscience affirm someone’s salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Would you agree with that, or are you defining first and second tier differently?


Nick, perhaps I am defining them a bit differently. I agree that a first tier heresy is one where you cannot in good conscience affirm the salvation of someone who holds to it. But “holds to it” is tricky. Egalitarianism is not just a matter of whether women can preach. Egalitarianism, consistently held to, would result in all sorts of Trinitarian errors.

Holding the Fort in the CoE

Thank you for your service and ministry; you are a blessing to our family and to the Kingdom.

My wife and I moved from London to a rural location and had to leave our Protestant Reformed church as it was too far away. After much searching, we have joined an Anglican (Church of England) church that is led by a faithful, Bible-believing vicar who has been in service for over 30 years and laments the steady decline of the C of E.

By the grace of God, I have built a relationship with the vicar and we are having open, frank and fruitful discussions. As a result, he has asked me to join the Parochial Church Council to be a voice that supports him “in coming at all things from a scriptural perspective”. The issue is that to take up this post of leadership I’m required to be formally Confirmed into the C of E. This seems to me to be a man-made ceremony with no solid scriptural grounding and one that I think is in danger of undermining the sacrament of baptism.

My question is, should I overlook this and go through with the Confirmation in order to be put into the PCC position—in the hope that God will use me to support the Vicar in his struggle against the worldliness that is infecting the Church of England—or is it a step too far and am I better off looking to work for reformation in other areas of our Church?

As a side note, if I were to be confirmed he has agreed that it would not be by a Bishopess . . .

Cordially in Christ,


Jack, I don’t know what about a confirmation would undermine the sacrament of baptism. Did you have a specific concern in mind? Other than that, I don’t think there would be any fundamental compromises . . . even though it is kind of like arranging to be helicoptered into the Alamo right near the end.

The post Letters of a Junish Sort appeared first on Blog & Mablog.






Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: