That's 100% correct

When Wilson laughs, rewind.

In case you're wondering, here's the extended interview: www.cnn.com/2025/08/18/T...

Those of you who want to know more about how we got here, I highly recommend reading Jesus & John Wayne by @kkdumez.bsky.social.

Also, there’s a whole @sonsofpatriarchy.bsky.social podcast about Doug Wilson & the CREC.

www.amazon.com/Jesus-John-W...

So, to conclude, not only is what Joshua describing incorrect, it goes against the very standards he claims to uphold, as well as the witness of the Scriptures he (and I) love and profess to believe and follow.

Westminster Larger Catechism 140-141 discusses the great commandment “to love your neighbor as yourself,” and discusses what it means at length: to use just measures, fairly compensate, and pursue contracts with justice and righteousness.

How does this *promote* slavery? It repudiates it.

This upended any notion of the view of the slave/master paradigm.

In the book of Philemon, Paul talks to a master and slave, though it is *not* clear whether this is one person who owns another person and receives free labor, or something nearer to debt repayment. *However* Paul admonishers the master to treat his “servant/slave” as an equal.

or through working for that person to whom that debt is owed. According to Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, then, this “slavery” is not “free labor” but paid labor, because it relieves a debt between two people.

The Bible describes slavery, and moderates it within Israel, but the “slavery” within Israel is not slavery. It has been (in my opinion) rightly described as debt-service. One could either work off their debt owed to another person through “regular” labor,

I will provide a short defense of how the Bible discusses the institution of slavery, as well as the confessional and catechetical standards of the Reformed Church, that which Joshua, Doug Wilson, and Pete Hegseth would align with (or say they would).

I won’t provide a response to the first two points, as those are well defended against in both primary source literature from slaves across the American South in the 1800s and 1900s.

who came from “pagan” Africa. (3) the Bible does not condemn slavery as an institution, and does set up “godly” versions of owning another human being.

Much of the defense revolves around a few points: (1) Southern Slavery, as an institution, was not as bad as history might suggest. (2) Southern Slave Owners were nearly universally Christian, and are in large part responsible for the “Christianization” of African Americans,

Joshua’s claims do not come in a vacuum, in fact, they are pulled a booklet by Doug Wilson & Steve Wilkins from the 1990s, “Southern Slavery As It Was,” and Doug’s 2005 book “Black and Tan,” for which he received a robust response from Thabiti Anyabwile, an African American Pastor in Washington DC.

Joshua’s claims are threefold:

1. The institution of slavery is not inherently sinful.

2. It is not inherently sinful to own another human being.

3. Christians must *defend* the institution of slavery and the owning of another human being.

It’s been pointed out that the aesthetic of Joshua’s presentation is something of an amalgamation of both Norman Rockwell (the blazer, hair style, and cigar smoking) and Nick Fuentes (mannerisms, facial expression, tone, pacing, and use of soundboard).