Most extreme
Doug Wilson’s most extreme statements
The most extreme statements on this site, across every topic, each in Douglas Wilson’s own words. If you only have five minutes to understand Doug Wilson, start here. If you have ten, you may want to sit down.
Democracy Should Be Replaced With Theocracy
Secularism: we need to abandon the idea of secularism, and replace it with the biblical doctrine of three distinct governments—family, church, and state, all of them under the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ.
Can someone committed to the long-term mission of the Christian church, which is in fact to disciple all the nations of men (Matt. 28:19-20), with the end result of that process being the obedience of all those same nations, be genuinely committed to a robust doctrine of free speech? […] Our mission remains the same, which is to bring every thought captive. The mission assigned to the church in the Great Commission is the eradication of idolatry in the entire world. […] What I am arguing for is not a secular libertarian ideal, where any man can blaspheme if he wants to. Rather, in its long war against blaspheming idols, the Christian church started by attacking the biggest blasphemers, the central blasphemers, the blasphemers with the power of coercion. […] So what I am arguing for here is a Christocentric theonomy—theonomy as though the Christ had come. It is not a question of whether the law of God is just, but rather a matter of how that standard of justice is to be implemented throughout the world. It will eventually show up in the law, but it will not be implement(sic) through the law. […] This is why my ideal Christian republic, set sometime in the future, would not have a law requiring a parapet around the roofs of houses, but would nevertheless hold a home owner liable for damages if a guest fell off a second-story deck that had no rail and broke his arm. You look at a situation, discern the principle, and apply it to a new situation. […] This means that as we teach the nations and tribes to obey every one of the Lord’s commands, and to submit to all of His teachings, this would include His teaching that Old Testament Scripture cannot be broken, and that He did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it.
[Leila Fadel: "Now, you've made it clear that you want a Christian theocracy."] Yes. [Leila Fadel: "In this country. You've declared yourself a Christian nationalist. What would that look like in the United States?"] It would look like fluffy clouds and unicorns and everybody would be happy. That's my vision.
[Pamela Brown: "How far off do you see a [Christian nation?], like a full-on Christian [theocracy?]?"] Oh, 250 years. [Pamela Brown: "250 years?"] Yeah... [Pamela Brown: "But you do think it will happen?"] Yes, I do. We're not going to usher in anything ourselves. We're really, genuinely pioneers.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
As we continue to fulfill this obligation, the goal is to have civilization and the kingdom of God become more and more synonymous and harder and harder to tell apart.
Good Christians Can Own Slaves
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that I am saying (out loud) that a godly man in 1850 could have been a slave owner. But this “inflammatory” position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what I am saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct in modern eyes, it was not politically correct one hundred and fifty years ago.
The issue is whether a Christian man could have lawfully owned a slave in 1850 America without being necessarily guilty of a moral outrage. Was slave ownership malum in se, an evil in itself? The answer to that question, for anyone who believes the Bible, is that it was possible for a godly man to own slaves, provided he treated them exactly as the Scripture required.
Bare minimum honesty requires Christians, if they say ‘I’m with the Bible all the way,’ well, we have to say according to the Bible, a man could be a responsible Christian and a slave owner and not be in sin simply because he was in that relationship... So it’s possible for a slave owner to be a good Christian and have a Christian slave and treat him right. That’s possible, which ardent abolitionists denied. So I would affirm the slave owners in the South had the better part of the argument there.
Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, malum in se, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians in slave-owning cultures to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?
Today if an abortionist sought membership at my church, he would be refused unless he repented and abandoned his murderous practice. But if our churches had existed in the antebellum South, and a godly slave owner who treated his slaves with kindness sought membership, I could not refuse him without seeking to be holier than Christ. Such a desire would be wicked, and this wickedness was at the heart of the radical abolitionist dogma.
My actual views on slavery are to be found in my book Black and Tan, and in my forthcoming commentary on Philemon. That commentary is entitled Slow Abolition, Paul's Letter to a Slave Master.
Homosexuality Should Be Punished by Exile or the Death Penalty
In other words, the Bible requires the suppression of homosexual vice, with the tools for such restriction including the possibility of the death penalty, but also allowing for banishment. Death is not necessarily an unjust punishment, but lawful punishments shy of that are certainly endorsed by Scripture as well.
Actually, this is the case for homosexual and adultery—heterosexual sin and adultery both. The capital offenses in the Old Testament, many people take them as minimum penalties... I take them as maximum penalties... [Sam Harris: “Are you open-minded with respect to the sanction of capital punishment in response to homosexuality and adultery? There are cases in which you think the maximum biblical sanction could be and should be applied?”] Correct. There are—I could envision a circumstance where that could happen. Capital punishment could be applied without injustice... One of my baseline convictions is I’m not going to apologize for any sanction that’s clearly in the Bible... When there was a man who was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, I’m not going to apologize for that. That was holy, righteous, and good. When someone was executed for the various offenses you mentioned back then, that was holy, righteous, and good.
King Asa in Israel and King Jehoshaphat both, in modern parlance, closed the bathhouses, they shut it down, and they exiled the homosexuals, and they didn’t execute them. And so my argument was execution is not the minimum penalty in the Old Testament; it’s the maximum penalty. It’s not a minimum ‘you must do this in all circumstances.’ So I was arguing for the civil magistrate having the leeway to deal with the social problem of public sodomy and the pride parades and whatnot.
[Pamela Brown: “Would you endorse punishing someone who is gay in the America you want to be living in?”] This brings up another old controversy. King Asa in Israel and King Jehoshaphat both, in modern parlance, they both closed the bathhouses, they shut it down, and they exiled. They said, all done with that, and exiling homosexuals. And the Scripture praises both men for doing that, which means that the requirement for the death penalty that does exist in Leviticus, that requirement was not a minimum penalty, but was a maximum penalty, because Scripture praises the kings who didn’t execute the homosexuals; they just shut the orgy down. They just shut the party down. So there is latitude in the application of biblical law.
In that debate back then, I pointed out that King Asa and King Jehoshaphat in the Old Testament closed the bathhouses, and they exiled the sodomites from the land. And their behavior is praised in the text. That told me that execution, although a lawful penalty for homosexual behavior, was not the minimum penalty; it was the maximum penalty. [Spencer Macnaughton: "And do you believe that still, that in your eyes the maximum penalty for homosexual behavior in an ideal world, in Pastor Wilson's ideal world, would be execution?"] Yeah. [SM: "You do?"] Yeah, if you ask me: "Could you ever envision a homosexual crime of any nature being visited with the death penalty?" Yes, I could.
Modern Christians are finding themselves increasingly surrounded by a sodomite culture. […] Whether we are considering the problem of sodomy on a personal level, or on a civil level, we will not come to sexual wisdom until we come to realize that God hates all homosexual practice, and that the fear of the Lord is to hate what He hates. Compassion for the sodomite, and a willingness to present the gospel to him, is not inconsistent with a true hatred for the perversion.
Individual Women Should Not Have The Right to Vote
Over the last year or so, from time to time you may have wondered to yourself why I have taken it into my head to go around talking about the 19th Amendment so much. This, along with my supposed interest in repealing the right of women to vote. Why on earth would I ever do something like that? Well, you can’t expect me to talk about slavery all the time, can you?
What I envision is a system we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting in our polity, in our church system. About 7% of the votes are cast by women because we have a number of women who are heads of their households.
In the civic realm, the 19th Amendment, by giving the franchise to women as individuals, transformed male voters into mere individuals, and wound up disenfranchising the household. So the issue for me is not who got the franchise, but rather who lost it.
[Leila Fadel: “And you’ve called for repealing women’s right to vote, which is protected by the 19th Amendment. Why?”] Because it’s a good idea... I don’t want women voting as individuals because I don’t want men voting as individuals. So what I envision is a system that we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting... The vote would be cast by the head of the household.
Her husband wouldn’t vote instead of her; her husband would cast the vote... representing the whole household. [Sam Harris: “But presumably he would have the power to simply decide what the household should be voting, right?”] Yes, if they disagreed, he would break the tie... Under the current system where the husband and wife both go vote, if they agree with each other, all you’re doing is multiplying the total tally by two. And if they disagree with each other, then they’re just canceling each other out. They might as well just save the gas money and stay home and have a nice steak dinner.
If you say I think men should vote and not women, snip, then that's going to be inflammatory, and actually rightly so. [Host: "Mhm."] But if you say that our concern is the disenfranchisement of households, why are households not represented in America's political system?... And so I just absolutely want to see the household represented in American polity.
There are plenty of unqualified, inflammatory things I could say this month. Some might even be true. Millennials are betas. Women are bad at voting. Men are bad at leading women. Empire's great. Hamas got what it deserved. Abolitionists are silly. White people are the worst. Black people are the worst. People are the worst. I could spend my entire month triggering simpletons.
Muslims Should Not Be Citizens of the United States
Wilson Probably the best illustration of this would be church bells, yes. Minarets, no.
Fadel Why?
Wilson Because the public space would belong to Christ. So church bells can occupy the public space, but a minaret is a loudspeaker, a big call to prayer. Could Muslims pray to Allah? Yes. Could they gather together to pray to Allah? Yes.
Fadel But they should do it quietly and in their homes?
Wilson But they should recognize that they’re in a Christian country. And consequently, they should defer to that.
In my biblical republic, if Muslims were here — not citizens, but residents — if they were traveling merchants or whatever, and you had a number of Muslims in the same town and they wanted to get together and pray together, would that be a problem? No. Would they be allowed to build a minaret? No. Church bells? Yes.
Muslims and Hindus would be free to think what they think and pray the way they pray and gather together with other people, but there would be no minarets. Church bells, yes, but no minarets, because the public space belongs to Christ.
So, if we put a million Muslims down in the middle of Nebraska, you don't have additional Nebraskans, you have little Pakistan now, right? And that's what my concern is. So, in an ordinary situation where you didn't have open borders, I would say, "Yeah, mosques, certainly. Muslims could believe and teach as they are have they their convictions." Mosques, yes, minarets, no... Church bells are all right because the public space would belong to Jesus. Minarets, no, because the public space belongs to Jesus. So, but I believe in liberty of conscience, I believe in religious liberty, and there should be no persecution of Hindus, Jews, Muslims, unless their religion involves flying airplanes into skyscrapers, right? If they're jihadis.
Non-Christians Should Be Barred From Public Office
Fadel Could [non-Christians] serve in public office? Could they vote?
Wilson So if you had a Christian republic, the Constitution would be Christian. And an office holder would have to vow to uphold the Constitution. So everybody who holds public office...
Fadel ...Would have to be Christian?
Wilson Would have to vow to uphold the Christian Constitution. Yeah.
Fadel So technically they wouldn’t be in public office?
Wilson Technically, they would not be.
[...]
Fadel So for example, I’m a woman who’s not married, who doesn’t have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy, where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?
Wilson No, you wouldn’t hold office because you couldn’t vow to uphold the Christian Constitution.
In order for this to happen at all, the Church must be established, in the sense that the magistrate has the responsibility to recognize her, to convene synods and councils to seek her counsel, and to listen to her. The magistrate himself has the responsibility, as a public figure, in the discharge of his office, to believe in Jesus, Lord of Heaven and earth.
I don’t think he [a non-Christian] can be an office holder, because an office holder has to swear to uphold the Constitution, and if the Constitution is explicitly Christian, I can see non-Christians wanting to live in a Christian society, but I can’t see them vowing to uphold it and defend it, etc. So yes, I think a non-believer or an infidel can be a citizen in a Christian nation; I don’t think he can be an office holder.
If these are the tenets that hold our nation up, shouldn’t we require all office holders within our nation to hold to these standards personally? That means no atheists, by the way. Number two, that means no communists, by the way. Number three, that means no members of the Nation of Islam, by the way. Number one, no Darwinists, either.
[Phil Williams: "In the America that you would like to see, Jews would be deemed unfit to hold office."] Well, I would say there's a difference between disqualified and unfit. So for example, right now you can't— [PW: "You're essentially saying they're less than."] No. If a 30-year-old man is not qualified to run for president. But he might be way better qualified than many of the people we've had as presidents. So, it's just simply these are the boundaries. Now, when you're asking about holding political office, if we're talking about America 300 years from now and we're a Christian republic, okay? And it's represented in our Constitution and laws, I want nothing more than what we currently have. Our office holders vow to uphold the Constitution, right? And if the Constitution is Christian, and it would only get that way if it did so by democratic means, lawful means, then I would want our office holders to be able to vow to uphold this Constitution, which is Christian. [PW: "But isn't that inherently anti-Semitic if you're pushing for a constitution that says Jews cannot hold office?"] No.
[Cenk Uygur: "So do, okay, since I am not a Christian, if you got your way and we have Christian nationalism, do I have the same rights as you?"] There would be, yes, you'd have the same rights but you wouldn't have the same privileges. So for example... I mentioned earlier the ideal republic 500 years down the road, in a biblical republic that was explicitly Christian there would be religious tests for office holders, right? So if you came to America in 1800 and you were living in South Carolina, as a Muslim, or as an atheist actually, you wouldn't be allowed to hold public office. You couldn't be elected to the legislature. But you'd be allowed to live there... [Cenk Uygur: "But not equal because they wouldn't get to run for office... They could be ruled but they could not be part of the ruling class. Only Christians."] Correct. So, if I moved to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't expect to be allowed to do anything in terms of governance.
What frequently the states would do is they prohibited public office to someone who didn't believe in God or a future state of rewards and punishments... If we're whiteboarding this and you're asking me to describe the ideal Christian republic 500 years from now, I would sketch out a number of things. We could talk about this Presbyterian utopia 500 years from now. If you ask me what my interest is right now, my interest right now is not to exclude atheists and Muslims right now. We've got bigger fish to fry in the moment.
Those people who inaugurated a high revolt against heaven and every form of natural law, right? So we're dealing— we are living in a generation of rebels... We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. They— their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.
We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... I want the Christians to tell Caesar to quit pointing his sword at decent, law-abiding, God-fearing people because the sword is inescapable... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. Their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.
There is no other way, no other option. If you will not have Christ-sons for rulers, then you have made your choice—you will have the Herod-apes for rulers.
[Leila Fadel: "So for example, I'm a woman who's not married, who doesn't have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?"] No, you wouldn't hold office because you couldn't [vow to?] uphold the Christian constitution. And whether you voted or not would have nothing to do with whether you were a woman or not... [Leila Fadel: "If I'm the head of my household."] If you're the head of the household, if you were head of the household and Christian, you would vote. [Leila Fadel: "And if I'm head of the household and not Christian?"] Then that would depend probably on the state.
Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.
Systemic Racism and “White Privilege” Are Not Sins, and DEI Coordinators Are Equivalent to Slave Owners
Their names would be things like racism or misogyny or anti-Semitism. But for us to use such nouns in the memorial would be to use words that are left-coded... I mean, after all, if sexism as they define it is a sin, then the Bible is sinful... So if someone were to ask a CREC minister if he believed racism to be a sin, an appropriate response should be, ‘How are you defining racism?’ If the person says, you know, ethnic hatred—hating someone simply because he is a Black or a Jew—then the answer would be yes. But if the answer came back as, you know, the systemic structures that support white privilege, then the answer would be no. That kind of racism is not sin.
Rich people are not the same as poor people. Men are not the same as women. Majority populations are not the same as minority populations. And wanting them to be the same in terms of equality of outcome is setting the stage for tyranny, which is a sin... What do you mean by white supremacy? What is it? Is it white privilege? Privilege is just another name for blessed. Someone who has more money than another person is more privileged than the other person. Is it a sin? No, it’s only a sin if you’re an egalitarian.
Christ died so that foul racists and evil woketards might both be forgiven and united in the new race. Grace is offered to slave owners and DEI coordinators, but I repeat myself. The feminist ministrix is invited right alongside the chauvinist blowhard.
The “+” in LGBTQ+ Includes Pedophilia, and Consensual Gay Sex Is as Sinful as Child Rape
[Spencer Macnaughton: “Right, that’s pedophilia though, which is of course different than homosexuality.”] Well, it’s a species of homosexual behavior. So let’s say it’s a Roman Catholic priest and a 15-year-old boy... [SM: “So you see pedophilia as an element of homosexuality, is that right?”] Yeah, if we’re talking about the alphabet people. Right? ... LGBTQ+. What’s under the plus? [SM: “Not pedophilia. Would you consider adding a ‘P’? Do you think a P is meant into that umbrella of LGBTQ?”] Absolutely. [SM: “You do? Because you conflate lesbians and gay people with, like, kind of akin to pedophiles. People who rape children?”] I don’t think that I’m making that association. I think the LGBTQ+ acronym, that whole chain, is sort of a sexual alliance of people who are defying traditional biblical norms. And pedophilia is one of those things that defies those norms. [SM: “Do you see two men having sex as equally sinful as a man raping a girl?”] Yeah, they’re both violations of God’s law.
Sodomites parade in the streets, claiming that if we do not appropriate more money to study why people with foul sexual habits get sick, we are somehow violating their civil rights.
A homosexual man has as much right to marry a woman as I do. So, it's not, in one sense, it's not uneven at all... I don't think the law should say that anybody's sexual choice, whatever their predilection is, should be honored or recognized by the state as an acceptable manifestation of our sexual impulses, because we're now dealing with minor attracted persons, right? MAPs. When you look at the LGBTQ plus community, I want to know what's underneath that plus. Who are we talking about there? Does it include pedophiles? Does it include people who are attracted to minors?
Women Who Misinterpret Scripture Should Be Called Cunts
So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of cunts.
And I said basically in a piece, I said, "Look, this is not my language. This is not how I talk, but these two women have reduced women to that, right? They've reduced women to that. So, all they are saying is that they are a couple of C-words." Yeah. Okay? And I said, "This is not me saying this. This is what I'm translating for you. I'm telling you what they are claiming. They're radically reductionist, right? And so then So, I used that word just consciously, decidedly, because I was opposing something that was horrific."... What I've seen is that people will gather—they'll go through all my writing, I write a lot—and they will gather up the few instances where I've used a jalapeno. They gather them all up and put them on one cracker and then make a meme out of it and say, "Look at this bad person." Well, I'm not going to apologize for any of that.
It’s Important for Christians to Defend Slavery
On another occasion, a Christian man was handing out tracts at a gay and lesbian dance. Those attending the dance did not appear to be pleased with this, and someone apparently called a liberal Methodist pastor to come and deal with him. The minister came down, and in the course of the discussion, the Christian man said that Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an abomination. The liberal pastor responded by saying, “Yes, but the Old Testament allowed for slavery.” The Christian responded by saying, “Yes, it certainly did. So what’s your point?” If those who hate the Word of God can succeed in getting Christians to be embarrassed by any portion of the Word of God, then that portion will continually be employed as a battering ram against the godly principles that are currently under attack. In our day, three of the principal issues are abortion, feminism, and sodomy. If we respond to the “embarrassing parts” of Scripture by saying, “That was then, this is now,” we will quickly discover that unembarrassed progressives can play that game even more effectively than embarrassed conservatives can.4 Paul prohibited eldership to women? That was then, this is now. Moses condemned sodomy? That was then, this is now.
[Cenk Uygur: “So why bother going back and defending slave owners?”] That’s a great question. This goes back to what I said earlier where I said I’m a Bible guy. So if I’m being interviewed in a situation like this and I’m telling you I believe that same-sex unions are sinful and we ought not to recognize them, and you say, ‘How come?’ And I say, ‘Well, in Leviticus it says it’s an abomination...’ And then you say, ‘Well, you’re citing the Bible, but the Bible allows for slavery...’ I don’t want to be the kind of Christian who says, ‘Well, I can play the that-was-then, this-is-now game, but homosexuals don’t get to play that game.’ If I start messing around with the Bible to make it say what I wish it would have said, then the homosexuals get to do the same thing.
Performing a Convicted Child Molester’s Wedding Was the Right Call
Not only did I conduct that wedding, but I would do it again tomorrow.
[Pamela Brown: “You helped a pedophile.”] Yeah. Well, I conducted the marriage ceremony, but I did do that, so. But I didn’t set them up. I didn’t arrange it for it. I didn’t — all the things you hear online that I did in that situation. [Pamela Brown: “So why would you marry off a pedophile?”] Because it was legal. He is a professing Christian. The woman he married understood his background, you know, understood what she was getting into. I didn’t arrange it. It was not an arranged marriage. It was not pressured.
He was convicted and served time... 5 years after he was out he met a young lady, was introduced to her by someone else. They got engaged and asked me to do the ceremony, which I was happy to do and I would do it again.
Slavery Wasn’t That Bad
The “peculiar institution” of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories, which are often nothing more than a hackneyed reworking of abolitionist propaganda. […] Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.
The [Works Progress Administration] Narratives consistently portray an amazingly benign picture of Southern plantation life. Affection for former masters and mistresses is expressed in terms of unmistakable devotion. Testimony to the good treatment, kindness, and gentleness of many so-called “heartless slave holders” abounds. Many of the old slaves express a wistful desire to be back at the plantation. Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.
[Cenk Uygur: "Do you get why if you're an African-American in this country this talk of like, were some of the slave owners not so bad, is deeply disconcerting?"] No. [Cenk Uygur: "...can you not see how that would trouble people?"] I can understand why it's happening, but as a pastor, I've done a lot of marriage counseling over the years and I've seen marriages that are frankly a helicopter crash... But the fact remains that some marriages are not like that, right? So the issue is I want to say that evil slave owners were evil... There's no argument for me about all the awful stuff. I'm simply saying it was not awful stuff across the board.
The high consumption of meat, sweet potatoes, and peas made the slave diet not only adequate, but it actually exceeded modern recommended daily levels of the chief nutrients. […] Many slaves had far better clothes than poor whites. […] Comments of observers suggest that the most typical slave houses of the late antebellum period were cabins about eighteen by twenty feet. […] Such housing may sound mean by modern standards but actually compared well with the homes of free workers in the ante bellum era. […] The medical care was good. Generally, the slaves received the same medical care the family received.
Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since. Whatever its failures, slavery produced in the South a degree of mutual affection between the races which will never be achieved through any federally-mandated efforts.
[Pamela Brown: “Do you still believe what you said back in the ’90s, that there’s a mutual affection between master and slave?”] Yeah. Well, yes, it depends on which master and which slave you’re talking about. Slavery was overseen and conducted by fallen human beings, and there were horrendous abuses. And there were also people who owned slaves who were decent human beings and didn’t mistreat them.
There were other descriptions of slavery times from former slaves where they looked back on that time wistfully, they loved their masters, they had a great relationship, and that quote, I would apply to relationships like that.
The Black Family Was At Its Strongest Under Slavery
The husband was the head of the house and there was a strong familial bond between family members. This kind of bond is not the product of widespread promiscuity. One could argue that the black family has never been stronger than it was under slavery. It was certainly stronger under the southern slave system that it is today under our modern destructive welfare state.
[Pamela Brown: “Do you still believe what you said back in the ’90s, that there’s a mutual affection between master and slave?”] Yeah. Well, yes, it depends on which master and which slave you’re talking about. Slavery was overseen and conducted by fallen human beings, and there were horrendous abuses. And there were also people who owned slaves who were decent human beings and didn’t mistreat them.
Bare minimum honesty requires Christians, if they say ‘I’m with the Bible all the way,’ well, we have to say according to the Bible, a man could be a responsible Christian and a slave owner and not be in sin simply because he was in that relationship... So it’s possible for a slave owner to be a good Christian and have a Christian slave and treat him right. That’s possible, which ardent abolitionists denied. So I would affirm the slave owners in the South had the better part of the argument there... When we’re talking about things like slavery, it would be better for a Black American to be conceived in Charleston in 1855 than in Baltimore in 2025. Your odds are better. Your chances are better.
From a Christian vantage point, we are making these points in a culture that has to date legally dismembered 60 million Americans by abortion. And so when we’re talking about things like slavery, it would be better for a Black American to be conceived in Charleston in 1855 than in Baltimore in 2025. Your odds are better. Your chances are better.
The Way Slavery Was Abolished Was Worse Than Slavery Itself
None need lament the passing of slavery. But who cannot but lament the damage to both white and black that has occurred as a consequence of the way it was abolished? We are forced to say that, in many ways, the remedy which has been applied has been far worse than the disease ever was. The issue of slavery was used to provoke a revolution in 1861. That revolution has continued to this day, and slavery has increased in our land as a result.
I do believe that the Bible back then is authoritative and we should implement it today. But that doesn't mean that we're asking for a redo at Gettysburg. What it means is if you inherit a slaveowning system, you should eradicate it the biblical way and not the bloody way that we did.
A Disabled Person Who Can’t Consummate a Marriage Isn’t Truly Married
In my experience talking about this, this is something that a good many tender-hearted Christians struggle with. They think it is endearing and sweet when a quadriplegic “marries” his high school sweetheart, regardless of the accident rendered him incapable of consummating the marriage. To be clear, I have no objection to such arrangements—I just don’t want to call it a marriage.
[Marlon Wilson: "Do you have to consummate marriage for the marriage to be valid? For example, if a spouse has a disability preventing consummation."] Yeah. Thank you, Monty, for picking up on that. I believe that an unconsummated marriage is not a marriage... I believe the definition of marriage is a covenant and a consummation. And if you have consummation without a covenant, that's simply fornication or adultery... If you have covenant, but no consummation, then what you are is just roommates or friends. And now, if there's a disability, I have no objection. Let's say there's a man who is a quadriplegic and he can't consummate the marriage and he's got a dear friend from childhood who wants to live with him and be his friend forever, I don't have any objection to that. But I just don't think it ought to be called marriage.
Teenage Delinquents Should Be Publicly Beaten With a Rod
Proverbs is talking about corporal punishment for some eighteen-year-old teenage delinquent, the kind of kid that wrecks someone’s car. In a more sane society, the teenager would be flogged or beaten with a rod, released, and then made to pay restitution.
One of the great errors of our day is that we have tried to have the civil magistrate take over the job of discipline. Why do we have penitentiaries? That is where you go to become penitent. The whole system of the penitentiary was built by the state to do the familial work of discipline, which the civil magistrate is not competent to do. The civil magistrate is assigned the sword (Rom. 13), not the spanking spoon.
Polygamists Should Keep All Their Wives and Continue Having Sex With All of Them
The polygamist and all his wives, if they profess faith, should be received into the membership of the church. He should continue to live with them as wives, including an ongoing sexual relationship with all of them. [...] Polygamy cannot be considered a sin in the same way that adultery is. It does fall short of the creation pattern, but it is a sin which can be culturally tolerated until the leaven of the gospel causes it naturally to disappear.
The Church, Not the State, Should Decide Whether to Report a Child Molester, and Pastors Should Defy Subpoenas
Actually, counseling is not confidential, at least not in this sense. Biblical counseling in the context of the church could always (conceivably) lead to very public church discipline. This is why a pastor should never promise absolute confidentiality. He should always (of course) be discrete, but there will be times when he has a moral obligation to inform the elders of his church, or in drastic circumstances, the civil magistrate. If a man has molested children who are in his home, then those children must be protected from him. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the social workers who rescue the children might treat them as unbiblically as their foster father did. […] But there is a sense in which there is a biblical confidentiality. The decision to inform the civil magistrate is a decision which is made by the church and not by the magistrate. A worthy pastor would defy any subpoena which tried to force information from him.
No statements here match that search. Search all statements