day no. 17,353: the HRification of everything

"I am indebted to Helen Andrews for the pithiest expression of what has happened to us as a result of women coming into these spaces in large numbers. She calls it the 'HRification' of everything. Men and women tend to view conflict differently. Men think of conflict as one of the means for making progress, as one of the necessary tools that will get us to a solution. Women tend to view conflict as the problem that must be solved. All conflict must therefore be suppressed. And from this we get all the woke nonsense, with busybodies trying to stomp out all the micro-triggers. I think it is useless to deny that this paradigm is now the dominant one in our public discourse. And I think the 19th Amendment was one of the original culprits." — Douglas Wilson, On Repealing the 19th Amendment

Is conflict good or bad? If we disagree over the nature of conflict, is that conflict permitted? Lump it in with those who hate hate and are intolerant of intolerance. The micro-aggression mongers show that they know how to make big deals out of little things. They also know how to create conflict in their effort to reduce other kinds of conflict. What is comes down to is the conflict that gets them what they want and the kind that gets them angry. In other words, the kind of conflict they can win and the kind that they cannot.

Isaiah 3:12

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way.

Women in positions of leadership is a sign of God's wrath. Oppression is the only result of female liberation movements. Women are less free when women rule than when men do. The masculine ideal is better equipped to govern both sexes than the feminine ideal. The feminine ideal has its place and it is good and proper in it, but it is tyrannical and oppressive when it get promoted beyond its ability. The feminine mystique on steroids does not produce a better woman. It does not make her more beautiful, but less. It does not make her as strong as men, it only makes her about as ugly as one. 

day no. 17,352: defending their innocency (exhortation outline)

Christ Church Leavenworth

WLC 144: Defending Their Innocency

April 26, 2026

Defending the Innocent

INTRODUCTION

This morning we are continuing our study of the ten commandments in the WLC and we are still in Q144 which asks, “What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?” The ninth commandment, as you recall, is “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The answer provided by the Westminster divines is this, “The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbours; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging tale-bearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;  keeping of lawful promises; and studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.”

The phrase we will be focusing on this morning is, “defending their innocency.”

The text cited by the WLC in support of this duty is 1 Samuel 22:14, but in order to understand how this verse applies to the duty to defend our neighbor’s innocence, we will need to understand the context in which it takes place. So, here’s some background. Even though Saul was the king of Israel, he was jealous of David. Saul’s son Jonathan discovered that his father was plotting to kill David. Since David was Jonathan’s best friend, he warned him of his father’s plans. As a result, David fled. He stopped to catch his breath in a town just outside Jerusalem called Nob where a man named Ahimelech was serving as the priest.

Because David had left in such a hurry, he did not have any food or even a weapon with him. So, he asked Ahimelech for some assistance. Ahimelech was happy to help. David was a famous warrior and the news of Saul’s change of temper towards him had not yet reached Nob. So, he gave David some bread and then he gave him the only weapon he had on hand: Goliath’s sword which was being kept on display as a trophy. This was the same sword that David had used to cut off Goliath’s head. A man named Doeg the Edomite was also there that day, however, and saw it all take place. Later, when Saul got word that David had gotten away, he was frustrated and began throwing accusations around. He wanted to know who was helping David. Doeg took this opportunity to report what he had seen and that is where our text picks up.

1 Samuel 22:11-18 “Then the king sent to summon Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father's house, the priests who were at Nob, and all of them came to the king. And Saul said, ‘Hear now, son of Ahitub.’ And he answered, ‘Here I am, my lord.’ And Saul said to him, ‘Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, in that you have given him bread and a sword and have inquired of God for him, so that he has risen against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?’ Then Ahimelech answered the king, ‘And who among all your servants is so faithful as David, who is the king's son-in-law, and captain over your bodyguard, and honored in your house? Is today the first time that I have inquired of God for him? No! Let not the king impute anything to his servant or to all the house of my father, for your servant has known nothing of all this, much or little.’ And the king said, ‘You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father's house.’ And the king said to the guard who stood about him, ‘Turn and kill the priests of the Lord, because their hand also is with David, and they knew that he fled and did not disclose it to me.’ But the servants of the king would not put out their hand to strike the priests of the Lord. Then the king said to Doeg, ‘You, turn and strike the priests.’ And Doeg the Edomite turned and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five persons who wore the linen ephod.”

In these few verses, we see several examples of people failing and fulfilling their duty to defend their neighbor’s innocency. Let’s begin with the failures. The first example is King Saul. This whole episode is a result of him falsely accusing David in the first place. Instead of defending David’s innocence, he accused him of treason.

Saul was insecure and, just like any of us when we feel insecure or afraid, he was tempted to look for ways to blame others for the way he felt. Because we don’t like the way we feel and because we don’t like taking responsibility for our feelings, it must be someone else’s fault. As Spurgeon once noted, "We accuse others to excuse ourselves.” It is often easier to make up things about our neighbor than it is to face the reality about ourselves. And so, we slander our neighbor’s innocence in order to defend our own guilt. But take heed and take note: the sins of others, whether real or imagined, can never cleanse us of our own.

Another example is Doeg the Edomite. He knew that Ahimelech was not trying to help David usurp Saul’s throne. He knew he was innocent. But he also knew that Saul was looking for someone to blame and he hoped that there would be a finder’s fee. Saul slandered David to try to keep from losing his kingdom, Doeg slandered Ahimelech to try to gain a position in Saul’s kingdom. So, we see that our guilt can lead us to lash out at the innocent, either because we are scared of losing something or because we are greedy to get something else.

Now, let’s move on to a few examples of people fulfilling their duty to defend the innocent. Consider Saul’s servants. When Saul ordered them to slaughter Ahimelech and the priests, they refused. They presumed a standard of “innocent until proven guilty” and defended it by refusing to obey a tyrannical order.

A second example is that of Ahimelech himself. At any given point in his interrogation, he could have changed his story to try to save his own skin, but he didn’t. He could have defended his innocence by casting doubt on David’s, but he refused to bear false witness, even if it meant being falsely accused. He stood by David and his decision to help him. Ahimelech was an innocent man who paid the price of a guilty man in order to defend the innocence of another.

CALL TO CONFESSION

Well, since we are so often more concerned with getting our guilty selves out of trouble than we are with keeping our innocent neighbors out of it, we are reminded of our need to regularly confess our sins, whether they be related to this duty or to others. So, if you are able, please kneel with me and confess your sins, first privately and then corporately using the prayer found in your bulletin.

CORPORATE CONFESSION

Gracious Father, if You were to mark iniquities, who could stand? But with You is forgiveness, that You may be feared. Called by You to the throne of grace, and confident in our great High Priest, we bow before You and confess that we have sinned against You and been unfaithful to Your holy covenant. Our hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately sick, so that we often do what we hate, and neglect what we love. Out of our mouths we both praise You and curse our fellow men. You promised mercy to our fathers through the seed of the woman. Turn our hearts again, Father, to consider Jesus, who crushed the serpent’s head, and saved His people from their sins. Forgive, cleanse, and restore us for His sake. Amen.

DECLARATION OF PARDON

Saints, arise and hear the Good News!

The assurance of pardon today comes from Romans 4:4-8

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: ‘Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.’” 

The story of Ahimelech points us to Jesus: he was falsely accused and killed for defending his friend, just like Jesus. He was an innocent man who was treated like a guilty man, just like Jesus. But as good of a man as Ahimelech was, Jesus is better. A man will scarcely die for an innocent person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— as Ahimelech did for David, but God shows His love for us in that while we were still guilty, Christ died for us.

Saints, hear the Good News: in the name of Jesus Christ, your sins are forgiven… THANKS BE TO GOD!

Now let us ascend to the presence of God in all worship and praise.

day no. 17,351: cultures are covenantal

"We believe that every healthy culture—and every healthy subculture, like a church—is something that has to be molecular, and that the essential building block of every complex molecule is going to be the family. This is why we vote in the way we do, and why I have written about twenty books on marriage and family. These are Burke’s little platoons, and we honor them." — Douglas Wilson, On Repealing the 19th Amendment

All cultures are covenantal. 

As such, covenant breakers cannot create a culture, they can only feed off an existing one. In that way, they are like locust. They can eat the produce of a land, but they cannot plant. They can only pillage and plunder. Covenant breakers can, like the prodigal, devour a culture, but they cannot create one. They can spend their inheritance, but they cannot save one or pass one down to their offspring.

The family is the first and foundational covenantal reality with which everyone comes into contact. It is there that we learn how to depend on others to do their duty while being dependable in the execution of our own duties. It is there that we learn that we do not need the State to survive, we simply need them to pick up the phone when lethal force is required. 

day no. 17,350: atomistic or adamistic

"The integers out of which the State is constituted are not individuals, but families represented in their parental heads.” — R.L. Dabney

Men are not atomistic, they are Adamistic. They are not made without respect to others like individual widgets on an assembly line, they are made as sons and daughters in a covenantal line. Families are fundamental. Every one is born under the headship of another. No one is born outside of a covenantal reality. As such, we are not individuals, we are, as Rene Girard has noted, interviduals.

The building blocks of society are not individual souls, but independent households. As image bearers, we are molecular, not atomistic. The State wants to destroy our molecular bonds, but since it cannot win a war against reality, it settles for the same subtlety that Satan employed in Eden. It preaches radical individualism reinforced by individual votes. It tries to convince us that freedom is found in being your own god and that obedience to a head is offensive.

Husbands are the heads of their wives and parents are the heads of their children. The civil magistrate is the representative head of those households.

day no. 17,349: the beautiful words that have to wait

"People have beautiful things to say about you, but you must die first." — Fyodor Dostoevsky

We don't build monuments to the prophets until they are dead. When they are alive, we wrestle with them and how uncomfortable their words make us feel. Once they are gone, we can see their point without having to be poked by them. We are only willing to spar with them once they are incapacitated and unable to fight back in real time.

Some people genuinely have beautiful things to say right now, but lack the opportunity or the initiative to tell you. Some people do not have much to say about you, but your death will inspire magnanimity in them and beautiful things will be said, beautiful sentiments that never existed in their heads prior to your passing.

"Well done, good and faithful servant," is reserved for the dead. While those on earth may flatter your memory or finally feel compelled to say the kind things they've always thought, the kindest words one can hear are from Christ. In other words, the best things that can ever be said about you, can only be said about you after you are dead.

Eulogies are literally good words and they only arrive at the end of the story.

day no. 17,348: everything, something, nothing, and anything

“When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything.” — G.K. Chesterton

Nihilism is a lie. No one believes in nothing. Belief is inescapable. It is not a matter of if you will believe something, but of what you will believe in. If you, in a fit of crestfallen madness, turn your belief away from everything, you do not turn to the nothing. You cannot find nothing anywhere. What you turn to is your belief in nothing. You can believe in your belief, but you can also believe in your disbelief. You may believe your disbelief to be the most reasonable belief to have, but you cannot have no belief. You will believe in something and if it is not everything in Christ, it can be as absurd as putting your everything into nothing, which when you come to think of it, is really quite something.

There is a fine line between inconsolable and gullible. Those who refuse to be comforted by Christ will go as far as to seek comfort in discomfort. Those who stop looking to the one thing begin looking to anything. Those who refuse to go the one way begin considering any way. Those who reject the one life are in danger of seeking life even in death.

Proverbs 8:36

All they that hate me love death.

day no. 17,347: internationally obsessed and domestically ignorant

“Our leaders are internationally obsessed and domestically ignorant.” — Charlie Kirk

We elect our representatives to address our concerns, but they often end up meddling in the affairs of others with whom we have nothing to do. They spend their time passing legislation to take our tax dollars to address their concerns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, or Iran. As such, our representatives, do not represent us very well. The average Joe is not interested in the middle east other than trying to avoid sending his sons there to die. The more our representatives grab passing nations by the ears, the less they concern themselves with the people playing in their own back yards. And when they begin to bark, they get put in the kennel. 

Our leaders cannot stop minding someone else's beeswax and continually ignore the needs of their own bees. They think of us as worker bees which is to say that they do not think of us. They think of themselves as queen bees which is to say they think only of themselves.