Stephen Wolfe

Kevin DeYoung has chosen the CN study committee members. They are free to contact me at any time. To aid them in their study, here's a selection of my work:

It's a good day to buy Zach Garris books.

Almost 14 years ago, I was pursuing ministry in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). A mid-certification interview was conducted by a group that included female clergy. They asked about women’s ordination, and I politely told them I disagreed with it based on the Bible’s teaching. They failed me on the basis that I didn’t “empathize enough with women.”

Join us this Thursday 6/4 to hear from the Good Dr. Stephen Wolfe at Love & War in Texas! @PerfInjust @YRsOfTexas

Seven thoughts about the Rio Grande Presbytery's suspension of @ZacharyGarris. 1. Pastors are in the word-speaking business. It's literally in our job description. We are called to speak what is true and correct error (2 Tim 4:1-5). Garris' job is to speak words to uphold the truth and correct error. 2. Garris was not convicted for being wrong. He was convicted for sarcasm. That's a standard the Old Testament prophets, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus Christ himself wouldn't meet. Sarcasm is a legitimate rhetorical tool in the pastor's toolkit. The Presbyters who voted to convict him obviously had a personal vendetta against Garris and used the courts to lawfare a good man. 3. The idol of decorum is a problem with modern evangelicalism. The PCA will tolerate gay affirming pastors like Greg Johnson (of Revoice infamy), but will not tolerate truth tellers like Garris whose only crime is hurting someone's feelings. 4. Decorum is an idol because it gives power to the weak bureaucrats of the institutional class. Strong men like Garris speak truth plainly and directly. Weak men weaponize subjective standards of decorum to punish any speech that offends them. No doubt, the Rio Grande presbyters who voted against Garris feel justified in their decision. They probably see themselves as righteous martyrs after the overwhelming backlash they've received since their ruling. But their standard is a highly subject rule of decorum, not the word of God. 5. The Rio Grande presbytery's attack on Garris is also an attack on every faithful pastor in the PCA (and beyond). Scripture tells us to not charge pastors with wrong without clear evidence of serious sin (1 Tim 5:19-20). This is not favoritism for pastors, but a recognition that every pastor is in a spiritual battle. 6. The Rio Grande presbytery's attack on Garris is also an attack on the sheep of his church. This decision harms the souls of God's people by wearying their shepherd and distracting him from the work he's called to do. The RGP is trying to deprive God's people of their shepherd. Their attack on Garris is the same as an attack on Garris' entire church. 7. Finally, the Rio Grande presbytery was doing the devil's bidding by attacking Garris. Their ruling would undermine the authority of the word of God in the church and sow seeds of doubt in the hearts of God's people. Calvin addressed this. Calvin said pastors need to be protected from frivolous charges like this as a "remedy against the malice of men" because "none are more liable to slanders and calumnies than godly teachers." He goes on to say, "this is the craftiness of Satan, to draw away the hearts of men from ministers, that instruction may gradually fall into contempt. Thus not only is wrong done to innocent persons, in having their reputation unjustly wounded, (which is exceedingly base in regard to those who hold so honourable a rank,) but the authority of the sacred doctrine of God is diminished" (Calvin's commentary on 1 Tim 5:19). The Rio Grande Presbytery's actions were shameful, and I pray the PCA's higher courts do the right thing by overturning RGP's ruling and vindicating Garris.

Let me get this straight- I gave money to Hurricane victims, and it seems that the PCA's MNA under Irwyn Ince planned to use that money to line their own pockets? Are you kidding me?!

To clarify regarding the tweet below: 1) RGP did not admit any evidence on Charge 2: That means they didn’t admit the evidence of the tweet which would have provided the context of Garris’ interaction with Bradley. 2) RGP didn’t call on anyone to testify on Charge 2: They didn’t even call on Anthony Bradley to testify about the interaction. 3) RGP deprived Garris of the opportunity to mount a defense against Charge 2. They convicted him solely on what the indictment said under Charge 2. And then moved to indefinitely suspend him. #PCA

Why is NC State recruiting (cap-exrmpt) H-1B foreigners from abroad when her graduates are struggling to land a job?

The level of betrayal that has played out here is insane. Normally, labor scarcity is how an economy heals itself. When workers become harder to find, employers have to raise wages to deal with it, and out of this market slowdown the seeds of a new boom would be sowed as young people have greater purchasing power to buy a home, get married, and have kids of their own. But instead of allowing that correction to happen, America chose a different model. We’ve mass imported millions of replacements to suppress wages, blowing out asset prices in the process and leaving native Americans economically (and increasingly culturally and politically) dispossessed in their own country.

9 of every 10 new American jobs since pre-COVID went to someone born outside the country.

In other words, you qualify (6) by excluding the parent child relationship, on the basis of pre-adulthood, but then you do not base the parents’ moral basis for suppressing false religion on pre-adulthood but on “harm.” That strikes me as being incoherent and would resolve only by granting the state the power to suppress harmful religion.

@kvallier @james_d_baird If the basis is harm, not something related to pre-adulthood, then it seems that the state may act to suppress witchcraft among adults, because it is harmful.

It isn't a crazy idea. I have no right to stop you from practicing a false religion, and so you have a right to insist that I stop interfering with you. Error has no rights, but we often have no right to stop those who err.

@kvallier @james_d_baird Because if it is “it would be bad for her,” then the moral basis has nothing to do with age or pre-adulthood, and if it is “she is not old enough to truly evaluate these things,” then they have no moral basis to order their child to any religion at all or even morality itself.

@kvallier @james_d_baird Yeah, but I’m asking on what moral basis can a parent deny their child a manual on witchcraft?

@kvallier @james_d_baird I’m talking about the family itself, and the parent child relationship. On what moral basis can a parent deny a child a manual on witchcraft?

@PerfInjust @james_d_baird I thought you were accepting my scope restriction to adults. My view would only entail that husbands and wives, unless their marriage contract (entered into freely) specifies otherwise, may not restrict one another's religious freedom with force.

@kvallier @james_d_baird So, a parent cannot deny his child the right to read, say, manuals on witchcraft?

@PerfInjust @james_d_baird Not with coercive force, no.

@kvallier @james_d_baird Is it a moral duty for the family to obstruct the pursuit of what the family authority considers religious error?

@PerfInjust @james_d_baird The scope here is restricted to adults, as with a wide array of arguments for rights. And if that's the restriction, the substitution goes through without any problem.

@kvallier @james_d_baird Replace 7 with “the family is a legitimate authority.”

@james_d_baird In a recent article, I offered this formalization of the argument for religious freedom that the Catholic Church offered in Dignitatis Humanae.

If you haven’t already… give this dude a listen and thank me later.

@GShaneMorris @LukithunderEWC x.com/perfinjust/sta…

@LukithunderEWC I think I first met Stephen Wolfe in 2016, and it was getting discussed in certain niches then. Maybe the timing was a bit early, but my point is I've never changed posture toward it!

Indeed, it was lurking beneath the surface ten years ago when I specifically rejected the term Christian nationalist. But now it has burst forth in a blaze of unconcealable Jacobin radicalization as evidenced by me still rejecting the term Christian nationalist.