At the church I attend, we recently had a baptism of the daughter in a family. The daughter was somewhere around age fourteen. The pastor asked the head of household to confess the faith, and took that confession as a covenant representation of the daughter. This seems highly unusual to me—where a person is capable of publicly professing their own faith, it seems appropriate (possibly even necessary?) that they do so, even if they are a member of a household. I can’t think of any church tradition that would sanction this. Have you written on this question anywhere?
KC, yeah, I’m with you. Unless there was some other factor not obvious, but still relevant, like severe autism . . .
“ He judges them for their sins, whether or not they got tangled up in some misconstrual of the First Amendment. In fact, that misconstrual is one of the sins He will judge.”
Pastor Wilson, thank you for all the work you do to strengthen our backbones and defend our dictionary. Sometimes it helps to take a break from the (righteous) rhetoric and simply see with your own eyes a real example of what life was like before Earl Warren was anointed king. I hope you and your readers will get some refreshment out of the pages of this real life Illinois public school textbook from 1927, featuring more Biblical references than your average sermon:
My question to you: in addition to all important local revival, do you think there is any chance of creating a legal movement to do to the First Amendment constitutional misconstrual what the pro-life warriors did so patiently over the decades to Roe v Wade? Time to bring back the Old Deluder Act? Or is everything so far gone now it is better to focus all our energies on the private classical Christian school effort?
Adrian, folks are working on it. But I believe it will have to be entirely done in the private sector.
Thank you for your work and ministry. My family has greatly benefited from it.
I am curious to know if you have seen or interacted with Charles Haywood’s proposed “Foundationalism”. I agree with Timon Cline’s assessment that we are in an incubation stage of political thought, evidenced by Wolfe’s book and your own and others. Haywood’s thesis seems worth interacting with. I’d be interested in your take.
May the Lord bless and keep your family!
Cagan, I agree with the statement about the incubation phase. And I have heard Haywood’s name, but am not really familiar. I will take a look.
In this article:
Darrell Harrison insists that “I ask that you not interpret it as an argument for what is commonly referred to in cultural evangelicalism as ‘Christian Nationalism’ or, for that matter, that I am in any way suggesting, inferring, or implying that America be governed as a theocracy.”
Yet he reasons, “the standard of righteousness to which government is to be held must be nothing other than the Word of God. Any other standard of measure is, by definition, unrighteousness.” He resoundingly rebukes the concept that a secular order built on a secular righteousness apart from God’s own law is a non-starter.
. . . Which sounds rather theocratic to me, or at least how many of the high profile Christian Nationalists use the word “theocracy” in the limited government iteration they advocate.
Is Mr. Harrison already aligned in substance with the Christian Nationalist position, whether he wants to admit to the “unfortunate” yet accurate label or not?
CO, it sure sounds that way. And I fully get why some good folks would be skittish about terms like theocracy, theonomy, Christian nationalism, and so on. But at some point they will be shouted down by our adversaries, yelling something like “if it walks like a duck . . .”
You write that our complaint against atrocities committed under Christendom is that Christian princes were being disobedient; not Christian enough. Well, no, not exactly. Our complaint is that they were being cruel and stupid and bigoted and tyrannical.
The difference that has to do with their being “Christian” princes is that—except when piety was a cover for more profane motives—we know they did it with all the more ardor as representatives of Christendom—The Church coopted and corrupted by Caesar —operating under the conceit and delusion that they were Christian rulers and that they were doing the work of God’s kingdom. No communist ever committed state sanctioned murder with more self-approbation than a Roman Catholic magistrate burning dissenters or magisterial Reformers drowning Anabaptists.
Which brings us to why, of all people, Christians have the more reason to fear Christian nationalism. Besides the powerful distraction from seeking first the Kingdom of God, and the spiritually fatal deception of mere cultural Christianity, the scary part is that under Christendom Christians not with the program were primary targets of the magistrate’s Pharisaic wrath.
Are you confident that under any Christian nationalism/neo-Christendom, Christians of your doctrinal persuasion, or at least close enough to tolerate it, will be in charge of the program?
John, three things. First, you say your complaint against these “Christian” magistrates is that they were “cruel and stupid and bigoted and tyrannical,” and that because they were doing it in the name of Christ, it made the cruelty more cruel, the stupidity more stupid, and so forth. But what standard does it violate for a “Christian” magistrate to be cruel, and stupid, and so on? You are applying a Christian moral standard to them, while trying to pretend that you are not doing so. As to your last question, I believe I would take Christians of any stripe over the tyrants we have now. And last, it is clear that the sources you learned your church history from were not exactly objective observers.
I’ve been paying close attention to your recent writings on Christian Nationalism, including your book, Mere Christendom. In your definition for Mere Christendom, you envision “a network of nations bound together formal, public, civic acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental truth of the Apostle’s Creed.” I am curious why you choose to use the Apostle’s Creed here. Is it simply a convenient statement of doctrine because of its age and widespread use, or do you believe there is something inherently special about it?
Thank you for your time,
Nathan, because it is ancient, and because it is an accurate summary of the objective facts of the gospel, I thought that it was a good candidate for receiving widespread support from a broad range of Christians.
In the following blog, you say that:
“The American conservative movement has always been an amalgam of strange bedfellows—hawks and classical liberals and libertarians and anti-communists and pro-lifers. Depending on the circumstances, I am all of those actually.”
What does “depending on the circumstances” mean? Does this also mean that you sometimes consider yourself a classical liberal in the conservative/founding sense?
Jon, yes. I believe the classical liberal order is a Christian order, not a secular one. If I am talking to someone who insists on the secularism, then I would say “that’s not me.” But if I am talking about the order itself, and where it actually came from, I would want to own it.
“The normal people are all those who grant that many aspects of 2020 presidential election were extraordinarily dirty, and that it was 48% rigged, and the conspiracy theorists would be those who believe it was at least 63% rigged.” These days the only thing I object to about the term “conspiracy theorist” is the “theorist” part.
Ian, yes. It really is crazy.
“The Capitol surveillance tapes. And the list will no doubt be way longer than this. With everybody concerned under oath, and with the cameras running.” Why do you assume this will matter? I think the regime’s ability to craft the narrative will make all of this irrelevant. The public schools and popular media have done a great job of creating a populace of selfish, shallow, misinformed, disengaged voters. At this point Biden could go full Nebuchadnezzar beast mode eating grass on the white house lawn and the media would spin it as a health recommendation from his doctor.
John, what you say is a real possibility. But there are also indications that the natives are restless.
I have been disappointed to see Christians arguing over Christian nationalism as if the term represents a debatable difference of opinion between Christians. In fact it is a terrible term for discussing distinct flavors of Christian political theory. In this sense, it is perhaps regrettable that the term has become identified to some degree with Stephen Wolfe’s particular vision of a Christian political theory. Let us remember the term originated as a rhetorical device, a propaganda phrase, invented by the leftist hive mind. The significance of “Christian” in the term is nothing more or less than an attempt to shame Christians for daring to operate by Christian principles in their political lives. If someone has a Christian political theory, he is already, by definition, halfway to Christian nationalism. The nationalism part of the phrase was craftily selected to invoke fascism and world war. But anyone using the term is being made a fool unless he recognizes that today’s political establishment uses “nationalism” to mean anyone attempting to use the Federal government to secure the good of the American people and their posterity. If you don’t want to see the American nation looted, dissolved and deposited in the dustbin of history, then you’re a nationalist.
Please continue to bang the drum for the minimal version of Christian nationalism, namely, the end of secularism. I think as a simple matter of Christian solidarity, we ought all to adopt the label. Christians have become regime enemies and it will do no good to argue among ourselves, especially with a term as ill-suited to the purpose as Christian nationalism.
Nathan, there is much of value in what you say. But I believe that our adversaries have the ability to make any term we select as odious as they want to, and at some point we just have to function with what we’ve got. But fighting for the admission that secularism has failed is the name of the game.
And Now, For a Change of Pace, a Lingerie Question
What is your view of the tradition, even among Christians, of an engaged woman’s friends throwing her a “lingerie party” in which they give her lingerie to use after the wedding? Do you believe this is something that can or should be lawfully used by a married couple? This strikes me as Christians adopting a practice that originates in an unbelieving worldview. Of course, if used by a married couple in the bedroom, the issue would not be modesty but that such materials would likely be used to simulate or imagine something ungodly and they would be bought in places that Christians would normally not think it was appropriate to shop. Am I missing something here?
William, I think such showers are certainly lawful, but you should want some wise Christian women to be involved to keep things from going off the rails because you don’t want a celebration of hooker-wear. At the same time, there really are tasteful ways of approaching, fully in keeping with the Song of Songs.
A Darla Question
I just want to thank you for all the work you’ve done serving the Lord and instructing his people. I know our family would not be the same without your books.
Your Dear Darla series was especially helpful for me, and thank you for putting out that content. I was just curious, have you ever read Debbie Maken’s book, Getting Serious About Getting Married? If so, would you be willing to share some of your thoughts on it? I’ve also listened to Single and Satisfied, and I know D.M. is approaching the problem from a slightly different angle, but she does not seem to advocate contentment with singleness in her book. (Her argument would be that the Lord commanded those of us who are not gifted with celibacy to marry, so we don’t need to be happy or content with our singleness).
I agree that we ought to pursue marriage and children in obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, but I’m not sure if she’s thinking about it the right way.
Darla’s Younger Sister
DYS, I am familiar with Maken’s book, and appreciate her emphasis on not settling for the status quo. Years ago, Canon Press did something with her book, maybe audio?At the same time, you may be right on the issue of contentment.
Prayer Request for Ohio
I’m writing to you from Ohio, requesting some strategic prayer. I fully support the county before country movement but feel it would be a grave error for Christians in America to remain ignorant of the battles raging beyond their county and state lines. Thankfully the Bride of Christ isn’t hemmed in by such boundaries and we in Ohio are standing in need of some major prayers . . . sackcloth and ashes are appropriate but optional.
Yesterday, in a state-wide election, liberals defeated a last-ditch effort by our conservative legislature to protect our state’s foundational document before a battle over constitutionalizing abortion this November.
The unsuccessful Issue One proposed to raise the threshold necessary to amend our state constitution from the current requirement—a bare majority of votes (50% + 1 vote) to a more prudent 60% threshold. This is crushing.
As you know, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, pro-life trigger laws went into effect in 13 states across the country including the Heartbeat Bill here in Ohio, which bans abortions as early as six weeks.
(Sadly, this law was only in effect for six weeks before it was contested in the court and rendered ineffective through a judicial restraining order. Our conservative state Supreme Court would likely uphold the law were it not for this what’s afoot now.)
In response to the overturning of Roe and the wave of pro-life trigger laws across the nation, the pro-abortion lobby has adopted a new tactic: state constitutional amendments. These state amendments cut right to the chase and have been a highly effective strategy.
Since the Dobbs ruling, three states, including our neighboring state Michigan, have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the “right” to abortion up to the very moment of birth.
Three historically conservative states: Kansas, Montana and Kentucky all tried to pass constitutional amendments to, in essence, protect the right to life. All three failed. That’s a total of six states in one year that have failed to secure constitutional protections for the unborn. We believe that pro-abortion activists in as many as eleven more states are pursuing this strategy. We expect them to target states, like Ohio, which currently maintain low thresholds for amending their constitutions.
The threat Ohio faces in November is dire. The Roe v. Wade ruling, though devastating, was limited in that it had no actual textual basis within the United States Constitution. The damage that will be caused by explicitly codifying abortion “rights” within the text of our state’s foundational document is nearly impossible to overstate.
Guaranteeing a broadly defined constitutional right to abortion means that any attempt by our state legislature to protect unborn babies and their mothers will be characterized as a violation or restriction of this right and thus unconstitutional. If passed, this amendment will nullify all of Ohio’s existing laws protecting the unborn, making us overnight one of the most aggressively pro-abortion states in the union.
But these amendments go far beyond abortion. Both the text of Michigan’s Prop 3 and Ohio’s proposed “Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety Act,” purposefully employ non-gendered language, replacing “pregnant woman” with “pregnant person.” And this isn’t just an issue of linguistic acrobatics. Legally the amendment paves the way for gender-dysphoric minors to obtain “sex-altering” therapies, hormones and surgeries without parental consent.
How so? Because the amendment language states that “every individual” has a right to make and carry out their “reproductive decisions,” rather than stating “every adult,” this amendment will be used to overturn Ohio’s parental consent laws when minors seek abortions. This of course will endanger children and allow predatory adults to cover up the consequences of their abuse. Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, members of the coalition behind our Ohio amendment, have a lengthy legal history of attacking parental consent in the Buckeye state and across the country.
And they’ve covered all their bases. Ohio’s proposed amendment offers immunity to individuals assisting in the exercising of this new “right,” meaning that the ideologically driven teacher, abusive boyfriend, trafficker or pimp can now assist minors in obtaining an abortion or mutilative surgeries without the parent’s knowledge or consent and without worrying about any legal repercussions.
These state constitutional amendments nullify ALL of the life-saving state laws enacted over the years by pro-life incrementalists and essentially erase almost ANY hope of abortion abolitionists to ban abortion entirely. I fear that this strategy will transform many pro-life states with conservative representatives, conservative governors and even conservative state supreme court justices, into practically irrevocable havens for abortion. The laws of even the most staunchly pro-life states are easily undermined if they are flanked on all sides by pro-abortion neighbors. Those blessed to be living in unthreatened pro-life states cannot afford to hunker down and passively observe the fight raging a few states away. This is no time for a Bull Run picnic. We need your prayers.
Michigan’s Prop 3 passed last November with a 57% majority. Yesterday’s Issue One was defeated with 57% of the vote. The election in November will be close and we are not optimistic. I hope that God, in His great mercy, will spare Ohio this terrible judgement. I pray that He will not turn us over to the wicked desires of our hearts, be they the blood lusting idol of unfettered autonomy or the shiny idol of comfort and respectability obsessively polished by many in our evangelitists.
In light of all this I am asking, pretty darn near begging, you to encourage all of our brothers and sisters in Christ in Idaho and wherever your readers/listeners live to please pray, fervently, for Ohio. Please pray specifically that the Church in Ohio would loudly and clearly oppose this amendment. There are several Christian groups in Ohio doing an admirable job working against this initiative- the Center for Chirstian Virtues, Ohio Right to Life, Protect Women Ohio, etc. My husband (David) and I are volunteering with Together for Life Ohio, a very small group focused solely on encouraging and equipping pastors to speak out against this evil. If you’d like to see what we’re up to you can watch our presentation here:
Thank you, Pastor Doug!
Laura, thank you for writing. All the rest of you, pray for these saints.
Keep It Simple
Long time reader, many time questioner. I know Postmill is true for several reasons. 1) Jonathan Edwards believed (s) it, 2) it’s a lot of fun, 3) I convinced a girl to marry me!
So, here’s my question. What would starting family worship look like for a young couple with no children (on their honeymoon)?
Thanks a bunch!!
Chaz, I would keep it straightforward and simple. In addition to your private devotions, I would read a chapter of Scripture aloud with your wife, and then pray for the day.
A Medical Metaphor
I’ve been listening to “Angels in the Architecture” on Canon+ and your chapter on “A Heritage of Harmony” inspired me to reach out and ask for some high-level principles in dealing with trust and authority in medical decisions. My wife and I recently welcomed our first child into the world and it has revealed a difference of backgrounds between the two of us when it comes to medicine. She came from a family that was very into natural medicine/homeopathy/supplements/etc. My family took antibiotics/cough medicine/etc. and let the bug runs its course.
When our daughter faced some early (minor) health issues after being born, I found myself quite frustrated and caught in a place where I couldn’t trust anyone. On one hand, there’s the medical-industrial complex that wants to pump our child full of prescriptions, send us the bill, and shoo us on our way. I have a hard time trusting such an impersonal and mechanistic system (especially when it, at-large, denies basic biological reality). On the other hand, I have a hard time trusting “natural” medicine due to (in my perspective) the considerable ratio of “quacks” to legitimate medical experts. Metaphorically speaking, I feel caught between handing my child over to the doctors at the N.I.C.E and handing her over to some snake oil salespeople and leaf-bandaging mystics. I feel this dilemma quite acutely as I’m aware of my ultimate responsibility in protecting my child and being accountable for final medical decisions being made.
Returning to “Angels” and the idea of Medieval harmony, what are some high-level principles for engaging with “advancements” in medical technology and practice? To what extent does medical technological progress inevitably carry with it a “modern” view of the world/the body/health? What are some criteria for developing trust for the advice of medical professionals in both the mainstream and natural medicine realms, without descending to cynicism?
Jay, I can’t really do much other than sympathize with your dilemma. It is a real one. The metaphor I use is that the world of conventional medicine is like the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic church, i.e. much folly and corruption. The alternative medicine world is like the fruitier wing of the anabaptists, running naked through Safeway again. We really do need a medical Reformation.
Editing My Catechism
As I use the Liberty Catechism in the government class I teach, I want to be able to support each question and answer with Scripture. So I am (slowly) working my way through it to add proof texts for each Q&A. When I recently arrived at question 14, “What are the responsibilities of these three governments?,” I was reminded of a brief exchange we had here of the lack of clarity in the world about where commerce and its regulation fall within the three God-ordained spheres of government: family, church, and civil. Which led me to slightly change the answer about the family from “the family is the ministry of health, education, and welfare” to “the family is the ministry of education, welfare, and commerce.” And come up with these as proof texts for the commerce ministry: Proverbs 31:10–18, Matthew 4:18–22, & Leviticus 25:14–17. I believe one of the biggest challenges we theonomists/advocates of mere Christendom face is applying the Bible to the regulation of commercial economic activity. So I’d love your thoughts on 1) replacing health with commerce and 2) additional commerce proof texts.
Bill, no objections here.
The Metaphor James Uses
“…it is indisputable that works is the animating principle of faith.” What do you mean by this? Can you explain this in more detail?
grh, I simply want to do justice to the expression used by James. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. In that illustration, the animating principle of faith is works. But what James means by works is what Paul means by fruit, or by life.
Valid Baptisms from Rome?
POST: Roman Catholic Baptism (8/2/2023)
I have little problem with calling some Roman Catholics bretheren. But, I still have doubts about considering Roman Catholic baptism as valid and not requiring a do-over: If a man was baptized as an infant in the Roman Church simply by ‘rote’, i.e. simply because his parents were nominally Catholic but lacked real faith in what they were doing to their child, is his baptism still valid? Is the baptism valid if his parents lacked faith in the efficacy of the baptism? If he becomes Protestant, why should he not be rebaptized now that he can exercise faith? I suspect that part of the answer is that the baptism is indeed valid so long as it was done in a church according to the Trinitarian formula. But is this really the basic requirement? Isn’t the presence of faith (whether of the person baptized or his parents) necessary for the sacrament to be valid and efficacious (if those are the same things)?
I’d appreciate your answer, however brief.
Joseph, it is not the Trinitarian formula alone, because the Mormons have that. It is the fact that they hold to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and they use the Trinitarian formula.
A Hermeneutic of Doubt
In a recent post (not sure where), you made a comment about not teaching our kids a “hermeneutic of doubt.” I loved that phrase because it gave words to an intuition I’ve felt sometime in the evangelical reformed camp. I know this comment was—generally—in reference to the baptism debate, and the differences in parenting between Presbyterians (who baptize their kids and treat them as Christians) and Baptists (who assume the kids are lost until they are older and can then make a credible profession). But I can’t help but think of this constant hermeneutic of doubt throughout the reformed evangelical space. This recent article from Desiring God is a good example: Almost Saved: Four Reasons to Examine Yourself. There is a constant, overwhelming emphasis in the Reformed community on “examining oneself.” In my judgment, this is an overcorrection against “the sinner’s prayer” and seeker-sensitive churches. But the overcorrection comes dangerously close to the Galatian heresy. Desiring God even had a Twitter post once that said you aren’t saved by faith alone, and that works are necessary for final salvation.
Preachers of this “hermeneutic of doubt”—in an attempt to awaken nominal Christians—take biblical grounds for assurance away from the true believer so that you can never be encouraged.
Do you trust in Christ? Yes. Don’t be so sure. There’s a false kind of faith.
Is there fruit in your life? Yes. Well, it could just be you trying to earn your salvation.
Do you attend church and delight in the Scriptures? Yes. Well, there are a lot of fake Christians in the pews on Sunday morning.
Then, if you say you simply trust in Christ, works are brought back in, and they say you “have to really be fruitful to know you’re saved.” You can never know if you’ve done enough.
This seems to be a far cry from what Calvin said: “When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle.”
Yet many in the Reformed camp want to elevate works to the level of justification to awaken nominal Christians, but in so doing are in danger of perverting the gospel of grace.
I’ve grown up in this milieu, and have been forced to live in a constant state of wondering whether or not I’m saved. One day, I’m going along, enjoying the finished work of Christ for me, and then I visit one of these sites and they “upset my faith.” But after this recent article, I’m angry. This overcorrection is the offspring of the Puritan “preparationism” heresy.
I only see one verse—“examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith”; written to a wild church (the Corinthians)—where self-examination is exhorted. And even still Paul assumes the Corinthians are largely believers. Yet the Reformed community has taken this single verse and developed an entire method of gospel preaching that sows doubt into a genuine believer’s mind and makes it impossible for an unbeliever to enter the kingdom. Exhortations to trust Christ alone are tacked on, but by then the damage is done.
I’m writing this to you to see if you would address this “hermeneutic of doubt.” It’s pervasive. I know there are the self-deceived who need to be confronted. But surely this shouldn’t be unremitting.
I’m writing to you on this, because though I don’t agree with everything you say, you say it’s Christ and Christ alone and leave it at that.
What are your thoughts?
Chris, my thoughts are that more needs to be done to address this. It is a real problem.
A Postmill World
Question regarding your interpretation of the word “world” in John 3:16 and other places, with respect to Postmil, from “The Rivers to the Ends of the Earth” I’m working through this sermon series where you walk through the case for postmillenialism. One of the interesting points you make is to challenge the common belief that either when God says “world” in John 3:16-17, he doesn’t really mean world (the Calvinist revision), OR God doesn’t actually mean Savior when he talks about Christ as Savior (the Arminian revision). Your stance, so far as I understand it, is that world means the actual world—this reality and planet that we live in which was tainted by the fall, but through Christ has been redeemed and is being redeemed through the Church until the last day.
If that’s the case, I’m curious how you would square that interpretation with John 17:9, where Jesus in the high priestly prayer specifically points out that He is NOT praying for the world, but for those the Father has given Him out of the world. If world means this planet/reality we live in, and Jesus is not praying for it, is this an indication that He holds this reality at a lower esteem, perhaps as He looks forward to the new heavens and new earth? Am I actually mistaken on your take on your concept of ‘world’ in the text? Is this a problem passage for the postmil position? If not, why not? Thank you for your patience with these questions, and for all the ways God has used your ministry in my life and in others.
Brandon, the word for world is kosmos, and Scripture uses in about nine different ways. It means the world’s system of values (“love not the world, or the things in the world”). It means Gentiles as opposed to Jews. It means planet earth. It means non-Christians as opposed to Christians (“do not be surprised if the world hates you”). And, in John 3:16, it means all of humanity, redemptively considered.
Discipline HELP! Doug, your wisdom has been very helpful.
I need some guidance. Our child will not submit and allow us to spank her without me (the father) holding her down. I could really use some insight on how to handle this biblically without spanking her 20 times before she submits and puts her hands on the bed. Could you please help me? I would be happy to pay for counseling if that would be possible.
BB, I would not make that submission the primary issue. If you have to choose between holding her down and spanking once, and spanking her 20 times in order to get her to cooperate with the spanking, go for the former. Work toward the latter gradually.
I had a couple of more sensitive questions about marriage and sexuality.
1. What are your thoughts on oral sex within marriage? It was historically considered sodomy, but I can’t seem to find anything wrong with it per se.
2. What are your thoughts on sex during the wife’s period? Is it all okay since we’re in the New Covenant? Is it just copulation that counts as “uncovering nakedness,” i.e. can a husband perform oral sex on his wife during her period or petting if she wants to have sex during this time? As long as blood’s not involved?
I’m sorry—I imagine you get this question a lot, I just can’t seem to find this talked much about anywhere, yet it also seems a pertinent question. Thank you for all of the work you do,
John, I treat these sorts of things in more detail in books like Fidelity, or Reforming Marriage. But the short answer is that oral sex should not be treated as a substitute for old school sexual activity, but the Song of Songs does indicate that it can have a role in foreplay. And for the other, I don’t think the uncleanness involved was simply ceremonial. That ceremonial ban is now lifted, but I think there is wisdom in sexual abstinence during that time.
So I was listening to the Plodcast (259: A Long Trail of Corruption) and I wholeheartedly agree with almost all of it except I do not understand what drives you to hope for the Ukrainians to prevail. Should other countries (specifically the U.S.A) keep sending aid to Ukraine at all?
AA, sending aid or (far worse) troops is one thing, and can be debated separately. Hoping and praying that Ukraine prevails is as simple as recognizing that Russia is the aggressor.
Thanks for the Story
Your book Flags out Front really inspired me and led to an amazing experience at my Bible College. I live on campus at Fruitland Baptist Bible College. Day after day I’d pass the flags and get frustrated because the American flag was higher than the Christian flag. Eventually, I read Flags Out Front and I began to pray for a change. One night a very powerful wind was blowing as I was driving to work. I passed the flag and prayed “Tear it down, Lord. Make your flag fly highest.” I returned the next day and the American flag was GONE! The wind had torn it down! The Christian flag was left flying high standing strong against the tumultuous winds. The next day I contacted our president and explained my convictions about the flag. I explained how God answered my prayer and tore down the flag and I requested that the American flag either fly lower than the Christian flag or not be put back up. For a while no American flag was put back up. Now all flags have been taken down. Not sure why that is, but I’ll take it as a win.
God bless you brother,
Jerry, thanks for sharing.
Isn’t it ironic that when Paul mentions baptism in 1 Cor. 10:1-5 as being performed on the people of Israel coming out of Egypt, all the people who were baptized as adults were scattered around the desert for the apostasy of that generation and only those baptized as babies actually entered into the promised land?
Rafael, yes. Well worth noting.