Why Matt Walsh’s Blog is Bad for the Soul

matt walshI cringe when I see friends post and share links to Matt Walsh’s blog. Not because I’ve never posted cringe-worthy stuff — I’ve done plenty, even recently. But I cringe because I think Matt Walsh’s writing is usually bad for the soul.

And I’m concerned that he may not be having a good effect on people I love and respect.

If you’re not familiar with Matt Walsh, he’s a young, conservative, religious blogger whose specialty is 1,200+ word diatribes about social issues. He’s kind of a young, male, religious version of Ann Coulter.

While Walsh is articulate and makes a number of points I agree with, here are three reasons why I believe the overall effect of his work is soul-shrinking.

1. Walsh’s writing lacks the fruit of the Spirit, especially love.

With the possible exception of faithfulness, the majority of Walsh’s writing lacks the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

In particular, Walsh’s tone rarely reflects the supreme Christian virtue of love. Now, he would likely disagree and say that it’s loving to point out error, and I agree that it is (which is why I’m writing this). But it’s unloving to point out error in a way that is unloving.

It’s a bit like the street-preacher I witnessed in college who–when challenged by a gay activist about love–shouted, “I do love you, you miserable wretch!”

Consider these Biblical passages and ask whether love matters:

And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2 ESV)

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35 ESV)

The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:5 ESV)

For a Christian to imbibe and celebrate arguments that reflect truth but almost completely lack grace runs contrary to the goal of spiritual growth (love) and the model of Jesus (John 1:14).

[Note: I’m not saying that Walsh lacks the fruit of the Spirit in his personal life–I don’t know him. I’m only discussing the tone of his writing.]

UPDATE: One reader wondered if I could cite any specific examples. Here’s one: In a recent post titled, “Police officers aren’t the ones destroying the black community,” Walsh criticized somebody as “a ridiculous fool,” “a liar,” and “a lunatic” with “an enormous dose of idiocy.” This name-calling is mean-spirited and harsh.

2. Walsh’s specialty is making a point rather than a difference.

Andy Stanley was the first person I heard say, “It’s always easier to make a point than it is to make a difference.”

Christians are invited to make a difference in this world. We are adopted by the Father, justified by the Son and indwelled by the Holy Spirit. We are loved with excessive, scandalous, prodigal grace. This propels us to offer our lives as living sacrifices to God, living in ways that are transformed by him rather than conformed to the world. Through love, service and relationship we have an opportunity to make a difference.

Or we can just make a point.

Matt Walsh is all about making a point. And, often, his point is a good one.

My concern is that in an increasingly divided ideological world — where we can always find somebody to listen to who we agree with — Christians will follow Matt Walsh’s lead, thinking that as long as they said the right thing they were faithful, even though little difference is made.

Rather than Walsh’s model, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s instruction:

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26 ESV)

Note that this doesn’t mean criticism (“correcting opponents”) is bad itself. It means that correcting opponents in a quarrelsome, unkind way is a problem.

3. Walsh’s blog confirms all the suspicions skeptics have toward Christians.

In his book, unChristian, David Kinnaman lists the assumptions that many non-Christian people have about Christians that–according to them–make Christianity less desirable:

  • Christians are hypocritical
  • Christians don’t have meaningful relationships with non-Christians
  • Christians are antihomosexual
  • Christians are sheltered from the world
  • Christians are too political
  • Christians are too judgmental

Whether Christians agree about these perceptions, they exist. And Matt Walsh’s tone plays right into every one.

As one thoughtful reviewer suggested, image-management isn’t really the primary goal Christians should have. No matter how faithfully we follow Jesus, we will always be misunderstood and misrepresented.

Nonetheless, Christians should know that publicly sharing Walsh’s posts will likely decrease, rather than increase, the effectiveness of their witness. If you have skeptical friends who follow you online (like I do), sharing articles that lack love and make a point instead of a difference will not help influence friends the way you might think.


Adults will read and share what they want. I have no interest in policing the media that people consume, like and promote. But as a pastor who wants to see Christians grow in their love and make a greater difference in a skeptical world, I’m concerned that reading Matt Walsh will be counter-productive.

Agree? Disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts.


Published by Luke Simmons

I was born and raised in Denver, CO and lived there through high school. Then I moved to Champaign, IL where I attended the University of Illinois and played on the Fighting Illini baseball team. I was married in December, 2001 to Molly, who I met at the U of I. In June of 2002, we moved to Phoenix and have been here ever since.

Join the Conversation


  1. Thanks for this post…Walsh may have talent in writing, but all I see from his posts are discord and clanging symbols.

  2. AMEN Luke. I had a good, beloved friend post one of Matt’s blog entries last week (I bet you can guess which one) and I just felt wrong after reading it. A bit of a debate ensued and I ended a thought similar to yours-
    “I guess my own bottom line is, Walsh often comes off arrogant, sophomoric and not really that helpful. He’s great at driving traffic to his blog, but I personally felt like he was more worried about being right than righteous. Yeah, the article I posted was emotionally-informed. But if depression is indeed multidimensional, then I see no harm in considering multiple perspectives. Unfortunately, as is often the case, Christian bloggers have once again served to be divisive rather than loving and unifying. At the very least, Walsh’s remarks were badly-timed and in poor taste. How is that a win, even if he has better theology? 1 Cor 13:1-3 comes to mind.”

  3. Agreed. In my mind, what makes reading his blog additionally difficult is the fact that I’ve yet to see evidence that he is a part of a local congregation, parachurch, or anything of that nature. I’d have a lot more respect for the opinion of someone who is in the trenches on a daily basis.

    1. Drew, I read Walsh a good deal and he frequently talks about his church and what he had heard or learned. Walsh is a Roman Catholic Christian. Yes he is outspoken. So was Stephen – so much so the unconverted Saul watched him get stoned to death. But please,show me the follower of Jesus who has no shortcoming. Even Luke in this post, although sincere, falls into this trap of saying who is and who isn’t….sad, because we all do.

      1. Roman Catholics are not Christians and were not thought to be until the ecumenical movement of 1910. Catholics have killed more Christians than any other group.

      2. The point of the post for me is that bloggers like Walsh have a lot of influence – and that the way he writes could be harmful. Doesn’t the Bible say something like – teachers are held to a higher standard? It doesn’t have to do with judging Walsh’ faults, but warning about his influence. That seems perfectly acceptable to me.

  4. I agree on many points, and yet there’s an almost hypocritical turn in your article as well. Telling your audience that “these are the things nonChristians assume about Christians” actually instructs us to take care of our image, which you had previously said is not the point. Though you say “nonetheless,” and that the point is only to help our witness, you’re still telling us to maintain our image.

    I think the real point is the verse that says “patiently enduring evil.” His blog does NOT do that, and we all as Christians should make that part of our goal.

    However, we are also constructed to “abhor evil,” and there Matt Walsh does a fantastic job. On his points like homosexuality, abortion, pornography, etc., I think his blog is quite valuable for stating the truth very bluntly, and harsh enough to make some wish-washy Christians really think. Too many Christians think those things are okay. Then our witness is actually decreased because it doesn’t have any power. Just think: “Jesus saved you from all of your sins. But really your sins aren’t that bad, it’s okay.”

    More than that, Christian lives are lived without trying to grow or to overcome sinful things in our lives because we think they’re okay.

    So I would say I think his messages, when read by Christians, sometimes do good for the Church. But when read by nonbelievers, I don’t think his article is helping witness.

    1. Thanks for your comment. I don’t think the goal of Christians should be to manage our image, but I do think it’s valuable to surprise people that we’re not what the caricature says we are. Anytime I can disarm somebody’s assumptions, I try to.

      1. He’s out there making a difference. He’s not afraid to stand up for what is right. Too many people are. I am actually proud of Matt, Someone speaking out for what so many of us are feeling. I think we felt alone far too long in this world’s of moral decay. It’s so easy for people to pick apart People like Matt because he’s out there standing for something that is good and moral. He’s not perfect, doesn’t claim to be. But he’s standing for something good.

      2. I agree 100%. Matt lets us know we are not alone and sin is not ok even if the rest of the world is trying to say it is or your a hater.

    2. Some very balanced points. Ministry sometimes will and should take on a different tenor with the church than with world. Also, for the most part, folks who live in sin will generally recoil from Christians who preach against sin regardless the amount of love that accompanies that preaching. That’s why John the Baptist lost his head and everyone eventually abandoned Jesus.

    3. I disagree that Walsh “abhors evil.” He doesn’t even care about evil from what I’ve seen. He only cares about issues where he can show his self-perceived moral and logical superiority to liberals.

    1. I did not. More concerned with shepherding people I know and love who read him than getting him to change (which is highly unlikely).

      1. Unlikely or not, I tend to agree with Troy. I think a dialogue (private) if granted would be very beneficial. By publicly calling him out you find yourself in the same challenging situation as Walsh does in his blog (subject to the same level of critique in which you gave) which gives you the unique opportunity to demonstrate with your words/actions what confrontation with those whom you disagree looks like biblically/lovingly rather than how Walsh does it. Some comments I have read on Facebook have accused you of bypassing Matthew 18 and not going to Walsh directly (especially if Walsh claims to be a believer). Wonder if you want to take a moment to address that critique.

        Also, do you know of anyone who is addressing these social issues correctly? Should they be addressed or ignored completely by a believer? Can one engage in the issues addressed by Walsh in a Gospel-centered way – maybe by using social current events and controversies as a means of demonstrating the Gospel – or should the believer’s response always be “no comment”?

      2. I think there are a number of Christians engaging these issues with boldness and courage, yet also with grace, love, and winsomeness. Folks that come to mind are: Denny Burk, Kevin DeYoung, Barnabas Piper, Joe Carter, the Desiring God blog, Tim Challies, and Trevin Wax.

      3. The Matthew 18 responsibility falls on those in Walsh’s own faith community, if he has one. It’s not the responsibility of every individual Christian who has an issue with Walsh to seek a private audience with him before speaking out against his hypocrisy.

      4. Seeing this get reposted by others I have to say I agree with Troy as well. For the most part I agree with what you have said but I felt very strongly while reading the post that it has almost the exact same negative qualities which you condemn in his blog. That is troubling. I think a dialogue of some sort might have been a better way to handle this. Otherwise I simply see the same attitude you are condemning in your article. Not great. In other words, taking the same arguments you used and applying them to this post, I think all 3 apply rather easily, it lacks the fruit of the spirit, makes a point but not a difference, and confirms suspicions others have about Christians. Just some food for thought

      5. Joe & Matthew, this question comes up a lot related to public critique of something. A few things to keep in mind:

        (1) My goal here is to shepherd the people I in my circle of influence toward more thoughtfully engaging with what they read from Walsh. My goal is not to ridicule Walsh or even encourage him to change. If that was my goal, I would have gone about it differently (though I’m not sure how somebody like me even could go to him “privately”).

        (2) Matthew 18 often gets cited, but doesn’t apply. It relates to a brother sinning against you personally, which hasn’t happened. Rather, Walsh is a public figure who has gone on public record and therefore to say that any critique of his work should be private is to say that no critique is possible.

      6. Huge disagree! Im glad a guy like matt has the sense and cajones to tell the truth and not worry about hurting peoples feelings! If pastors n priests did it in church we wouldnt need guys like matt! Thank God we do have him!

      7. Luke I appreciate your post, I might not totally agree with your conclusion about the lack of love, but I see where that could be the impression. In ministry it is always a concern to be forthcoming and loving and to balance the two. In you response to Joe & Matthew you make a good point that going to a public figure privately is not really feasible, but then you say that Matthew 18 is about a brother sinning against you personally…

        Let us be more accurate in our representation of the Word of God. First every time you sin it is a sin against God. Second Matthew 18 in context is church discipline. It is about people being right with God and the recourse the church should be taking to help people stay on the Godly path. When we stray Matthew 18 gives instruction on how to rectify the error.

      8. Luke, I did not intend to imply that you’re out of bounds by not engaging with Matt Walsh. I respect your thought process and writing skill and think you actually might be able to engage Matt, unlike other more well-known persons whom he might feel threatened by. That being said, I used to follow Matt’s blog and I agree with you–after a few weeks, I just couldn’t stomach the anger in most of his posts–despite his main point I that generally agreed with. I’m glad I came to that conclusion a while ago.

  5. Is it weird that a guy is writing an opinion blog assuming tones and attitudes about a guy he doesn’t have a relationship with and calling him out for writing opinion blogs about people he doesn’t have relationships with? And then people following up with assumptions about his involvement in a local church and making assumptions about those assumptions based upon those assumptions. It’s almost like you missed the point of your own article. I guess Driscoll’s next?

    1. Chris (or Matthew), which part of my post was harsh or mean-spirited? My issue with Walsh isn’t that he criticizes people–it’s the way he does it. For example, his recent post about how “Police officers aren’t the ones destroying the black community,” he criticized somebody as “a ridiculous fool,” “a liar,” and “a lunatic” with “an enormous dose of idiocy.” I really don’t think my post had that kind of tone or name-calling.

      1. Luke, I read the article written by Matt Walsh, and focused on the “name calling” you mentioned. Just from reading the article at face value, the name calling to didn’t really seem super mean or harsh…now, this could just be how I reacted, but I had a thought that maybe you are more aware of things that could be deemed as unloving because,as a pastor, people probably frequently point out to you even the smallest hint of saying something that could be construed as unloving or offensive (like after you preach a sermon for example, I’m sure you get a lot of flack no matter what you say!) So, as a result you may find yourself caught off guard by this kind of thing. For example, a “layman” could use this language in their every day life to explain their own views/points and no one would blink an eye, and then that same person could teach a class and realize how sensitive Christians/non-Christians are to something you may have said that you never would thought of as offensive. Just something I was thinking.

      2. Harshness, sarcasm and mean-spiritedness are things I fight daily. They are how I speak apart from grace and God’s Spirit. I’m not above them and haven’t moved past them. But I want to fight them rather than double-down on them and say what he and his supporters have said which is, “Well, at least we’re out there fighting the culture war and at least we’re right.” Part of why this attitude is so bad for my soul is because it helps stir up the toxic attitude of self-righteousness I already have.

      3. I wonder if Jesus worried about his “mean spirited” attack on the money changers in the Temple. I wonder of Jesus prayed for forgiveness when he called the Pharisees and others “hypocrites”.

        The problem with your context is you set Matt Walsh up as a “mean spirited” blowhard when all he does is call attention to the opinions of others. Walsh called nobody names. He called their opinions and conclusions names.

        Jesus did the same. And Jesus went further, calling people hypocrites and liars. You’re a pastor? DO YOUR JOB! Speak with the authority of Jesus Christ and don’t call others to repentance when they’re doing what you should be doing.

      4. You’re so wrong it’s painful to read. In your cited article, Walsh quotes Mark Lamont Hill calling white police “terrorists” for killing black people. Walsh said that only “a ridiculous fool” would come to that conclusion, which is true. He then said Hill is either “a liar” or a “lunatic” because he came to a conclusion with “an enormous dose of idiocy”, which again, is true.

        Get off your soapbox and be the pastor you claim to be. Jesus didn’t mince words with sinners who only engaged him to trip him up, or justify their sins. He called them names. Hypocrites. Liars. Thieves. If you’re truly a pastor, get off your soapbox and stop criticizing those who are actually doing YOUR JOB!

      5. I don’t either, Luke. This is my first encounter with Walsh and my first response was: the Bible says the World should know us by our love, not our ridicule.
        I know many who do a great job of speaking the truth in love (and many who don’t). We don’t get to choose (“Well, I THINK some people need to hear the harsh truth about their lifestyle!”). God says to speak truth in love. Period.

  6. Haleh first read me Matt Walsh’s article, without telling me about this ‘controversy’ — I really liked Matt’s article. But, I also agree with Luke that we should generally be more loving and less mean spirited. The strange thing to me is that when I heard Matt Walsh’s article (about police and black people), I didn’t sense any meanness… that could be because I am also mean spirited, and so it just slipped by me.

    I wouldn’t question saying that something someone said was stupid, or calling them a lunatic or liar for saying something insane or wrong… but then again, it’s certainly possible that I need to grow in the same area as Luke is saying Matt does.

  7. Hello Pastor,

    I must say I am a bit dissapointed with your post. I am all for bringing correction when needed and warning people against those who would lead them away from the Gospel.
    At the same time if you are going to take the time to publicly critique another brother in Christ you should have done your homework and be able to give concrete examples of the errors you believe them to be propagating. I found you critique very ambigous, almost no concrete examples except for a few words and frases you quoted without providing much in terms of context. The whole thing of ” make a point or make difference” its just unclear what you are getting at, are you saying Matt is hipocritical in his personal walk with Christ?
    I would just remind you that as ministers we will be held to a higher standard. I would humbly suggest you modify your post and provide concrete examples of the errors of Matt’s blog or simply avoid the subject. I admit there are plenty of bloggers or pastors who just kinda rub me the wrong way but I dont go out of my way to write a critique of them unless I have a solid reason to do so. God bless

    1. Hey Nathan, thanks for your comment. Not sure when you commented but I did update the post on 8/20 to include one recent set of specifics. I also went out of my way to say that I’m unable to critique Walsh’s personal life but am critiquing his writing. I’m glad you are all for “warning people against those who would lead them away form the gospel.” That’s exactly what this post is about.

  8. Guess you missed Matthew 18:15, “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.” Instead, you have to slander him to all the world. What a Christian brother you are. Oh, but you typed it with “love” in your heart, right? Riiiiiiight.

    1. Actually, it doesn’t say, “if your brother sins” but if your brother sins “against you.” Matt Walsh is a public figure with public writing and, thus, is open to public critique (as am I). Criticism does not equal being unloving. Unloving criticism is unloving.

  9. This just came up in my news feed so I realize I’m a little behind the times. This article is so excellent, just, wow. it makes my heart hurt the way Matt Walsh spews hatred. Thank you for presenting a loving and thoughtful critique.

  10. You didn’t define what love is, and that bothers me. You have stated multiple times what love isn’t (namely Walsh’s blog), but never what it is.
    Jesus loved me, a miserable wretch, and so I don’t think the Street Preacher you mentioned is being unloving in your example. How is it that God – who is love – can love a miserable wretch (and identify me as such) but His people cannot show love to miserable wretches while identifying them as such?

    So, what is love?

    1. I had in mind 1 Corinthians 13:4-7:

      Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

      1. Would that I had this love to where it manifests. Pray for me, for there are many worldly hooks in me, and great fear rises upon me from time to time.

  11. Someone posted a link to this piece today. It’s as timely today as it was when you wrote it. I haven’t known how to respond to friends who post MW’s pieces. But you nailed it on the head: they lack the fruit of the Spirit, especially LOVE. Thank you, Luke.

  12. Matt Walsh represents a big part of the church I’ve backed away from.. I love the Lord, I love His church, I don’t fit in. I can’t get on board with the mix of politics and cultural norms in the name of Jesus. I’ve seen first hand the damage its done to those who don’t believe & I believe we will be asked by God if we chose to partake in the cultural battles, or if we chose to extend our hands and walk along side others. As Christians, we seem to think people are somehow not hearing us & so we talk more and more and louder and louder & it’s time for everyone to stop taking. The blogs like Matt state what the majority of non-believers already think & know of American christianity. This approach hasn’t worked.. When will humble ourselves to see that? The “group think” mentality doesn’t help the situation either, to consume bias, one-sided news & then blogs, and only be around people who are like you… How can you trust your eyes and your view? How many people on that bubble are really seeking God in actual prayer? It’s a condition of the heart that’s reflected in the tone of blogs like Matt’s and others similar to him.. I personally hear fear in the writings & see failed after failed attempt to clean a bunch of fish before they’re caught- when they aren’t our responsibility to change in the first place. my prayer is that there are enough Christians quietly doing the work of the Lord to show those who’ve been hurt, and neglected by the church that they are seen and loved by God. Perfect love casts out fear. I am also needing to pray more
    for believers like Matt, that they will know grace and truth in their own hearts & in a way that casts out the white-knuckled fear we continue to see.

  13. You know, I don’t always agree with Matt Walsh. Much of the time I do, though, and I understand he’s not everyone’s cup of tea. Sometimes I wish he take a different tack, but hey, “different strokes”, right?

    You opined that MW is perceived as lacking “love”. Exactly what do you mean? That his style isn’t something that rings your bell? Different people have different styles. I’m thinking that the apostles Peter and Paul had vastly different styles of preaching: Peter was a common fisherman, remember, and Paul was well-educated. Peter probably had that folksy, conversational delivery, where Paul’s was probably a bit more polished. They had a commonality, though, in what they were preaching about.

    So, is it that MW doesn’t address others the way YOU would? That he’s not gentle enough for YOUR tastes? He’s even – horror-of-horrors – harsh at times? Is that offensive to you?

    This is the first time I’ve seen your blog, by the way, but I’m imagining you with that pious, purse-lipped look that Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” assumed when talking about “…mmmm, I don’t know……SATAN?”

    How condescending is it that you can assign motives to what he says and how he says it? How judgmental! How arrogant! How utterly WRONG!

    You say that “it’s easier to make a point than to make a difference.” Really? Isn’t that what Jesus did? Make a point? Jesus pulled no punches. Wasn’t it Jesus who called the Pharisees “blind guides” and a “brood of vipers”? Does that sound “nice” or “loving” in your book? It doesn’t sound nice to me, but there’s no doubt there was love behind it. He told a rich young man to sell everything and give it to the poor (because He knew the man’s heart). He told the woman caught in adultery to STOP SINNING. He was nice – gentle, I would imagine – to both of them. But He did, in fact, get violent when people turned the Father’s house into something other than what it was supposed to be. Jesus knew that, sometimes, it’s just time to call a spade a spade and cut to the chase. Jesus did it when necessary. He made His point – AND He made a difference, and continues to do so today.

    Oh, and people didn’t like it then any more than they don’t like it today. Why? Because it’s the nature of people. Remember that little “Crucify him” scene in the gospels? THAT’s extreme.

    Just my 2 bits.

    1. Thanks for commenting. I resonate with much of what Walsh says. But the tone with which he writes is caustic, rude, and not helpful for MY already too sarcastic, too harsh, too rude soul. I’m not saying he isn’t right. But being right doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

    2. I’m not sure if you will receive this message since this post is from four months ago, but I hope you do read this.

      I disagree with you. As a 47-year-old woman who is unmarried and childless, I have been a godless liberal for my whole life, and despite my best intentions and sincere *belief* in God, my life has been miserable. I am clear that this is because I was raised by atheists and never reached out to join a church or to study the Bible on my own.

      I have read dozens of Matt Walsh’s blog posts, and while they may make me uncomfortable, there is no doubt in my mind that he is telling the Truth (big T truth).

      As a civilzation, we are way past the point of cherry picking scripture. If I were to choose one, it would be Revelations 3:16 – “Because you are neither hot or cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth.”

      Satan has control of planet earth, and our only hope is in Jesus Christ. The fact that Our Lord and Savior hasn’t smote me personally – even though I would like to think I’m a good person – is evidence of how unbelievably merciful God is, even to a wretch like me.

  14. First, you should know that I rarely post on these, but your shared thoughts bothered me:

    1. A house divided will not stand. You profess to be a Christian like Matt but attack him publically and seemingly side with the world.

    2. Do you suggest calling people fools, tombs full of decay, blind? Do you think this is unloving? Jesus called people these names and I’d suggest there has never be a person more loving than Christ nor a better example to follow.

    3. People make differences through points. You’re making a point in this article and probably making a difference (whether good or bad). Your point is mute.

    4. The world has always and will always have a negative view of Christians. Are we suppose to accept the sins of this world or remain silent about them so the world isn’t upset with us. As far as tone and writing style, so people need a stronger, firmer approach. Read the sarcasism in the letters to the Corinthians or read Jesus’ words to the Jewish religious leaders. Consider Elijah on Mt Carmel with the Baal prophets.

    Bottom line. I may not agree with Matt on everything but I think he has a good heart and he’s trying to make a positive difference in this world. Maybe Christians should stick together more and then we’d be a stronger force in this world. A house divided will not stand. I hope you reconsider your attack on a fellow brother in Christ.

    1. I agree with Caleb. Matt Walsh is a good man with a good heart. He calls a spade a spade, which is exactly what Jesus did when here on earth. You used one example, which you had to add later to satisfy a reader’s question on your attack of Walsh; basically asking you to put up or shut up.

      In defense of Walsh and his “take no prisoners” approach in his rhetoric, here are some examples of Jesus engaging in what you and the liberal world would call “hate speech”:

      Matt. 7:4, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

      Matt. 15:7, “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me.” 9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

      Matt. 23:13, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

      Matt. 23:15, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…”

      Matt. 23:16-17, “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.’ 17 “You fools and blind men; which is more important, the gold, or the temple that sanctified the gold?”

      Matt. 23:23-24, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

      Matt. 23:25, ““Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”

      Matt. 23:27-28, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 “Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

      Matt. 23:29, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”

      Matt. 23:33, “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?”

      Mark 12:38-40, “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, 39 and chief seats in the synagogues, and places of honor at banquets, 40 who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.”

      Luke 11:39, “You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?”

      Luke 11:43, “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the front seats in the synagogues, and the respectful greetings in the market places. 44 “Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.”

      Luke 11:52, “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

      Luke 12:1, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

      John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father…”

      John 8:49, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.”

      John 8:55, “and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word.”

      Perhaps you should read your Bible and know just how harsh Jesus spoke to those who sinned with little or no interest in changing their behaviors. When dealing with those actively tearing down long standing Christian principles for no other reason than to make their sins seem reasonable, sometimes a well aimed baseball bat upside the head is the only way to get through.

      Remember, love the sinner. Hate the sin. Most importantly, don’t be afraid to speak with power and authority to those willingly leading God’s children down the path of eternal destruction. Sometimes “please” and “thank you” doesn’t get the job done.

  15. Mr. Simmons, you updated your blog to respond to the reader wanting examples of Walsh’s “hate speech”. Here’s your update:

    — Begin quote —
    UPDATE: One reader wondered if I could cite any specific examples. Here’s one: In a recent post titled, “Police officers aren’t the ones destroying the black community,” Walsh criticized somebody as “a ridiculous fool,” “a liar,” and “a lunatic” with “an enormous dose of idiocy.” This name-calling is mean-spirited and harsh.
    — End Quote —

    I don’t have a problem with your opinions about Matt Walsh, other than you provide no context to the quotes you ascribe to him. Context means everything. In that light, here’s some context to Walsh’s words.

    First off, Mr. Simmons, you’re either lying, being willfully ignorant, or you didn’t read his entire comment when you claim that “Walsh criticized somebody as “a ridiculous fool”. His actual comment is “But whether he is or isn’t, only a ridiculous fool would use this incident, or an incident like it, to disparage all police officers everywhere.” He didn’t call anyone a “ridculous fool”. He stated that only a ridiculous fool would jump to conclusions without facts, which happens to be an absolute truth.

    Second, you say he called someone a liar. The word “liar” appears one time in the blog post. Here’s the context”

    — Begin Quote —
    Enter Mark Lamont Hill, who took to Twitter to share this insight:

    “A Black man in America is killed every 28 hours by police or vigilantes. THAT, not rioting, is domestic terrorism…”

    His numbers might be accurate, but what sort of lunatic or liar would interpret them this way?
    — End Quote —

    Walsh appears to be on point. Mark Lamont is either a lunatic or liar in his interpretation of how many black men are killed by police by calling it TERRORISM. So Walsh correctly says this interpretation contains “an enormous amount of idiocy”, which it actually does.

    To summarize, Walsh called no one any names. He called their bloviating, nonsensical conclusions names. HUGE DIFFERENCE! The closest statement he made in which you can claim he called names is asking “what sort of lunatic or liar would interpret them this way?” He leaves the conclusion up to the reader to decide what type of lunatic or liar that person may or may not be. He infers and it’s clear he believes Mark Lamont to be some type of lunatic or liar to some degree but he doesn’t actually call HIM either name.

    So now I will do what Walsh did. I’m going to call your conclusions on Matt Walsh ridiculous and absurd. I don’t know you and this is the very first article of yours I’ve ever read (that I know of) so I don’t know if you, yourself, are ridiculous and/or absurd but I can say, with much clarity, that your conclusions, in my opinion, are both.

    1. Mr. Wolcott, I decided to look into who you are, as I’ve never seen you post to Luke’s site before. I notice you have your own blog and decided to post about Luke’s post about Matt Walsh’s blog (http://incorrectlypolitical.net/matt-walsh-a-good-christian-or-name-calling-bigot/). In your direct comments about Luke, you stated, “Perhaps Mr. Simmons should read his Bible…” inferring that Luke does not. I can attest that Luke not only reads, but studies his Bible more than probably 80% of ‘christian’ pastors do today.

      Also, at the end of your blog you make this statement about yourself:

      About Oliver Wolcott

      I’m a white, old, man who will not succumb to the political gerrymandering of our great American political system. I’m conservative. I’m traditional. I’m no where in the vicinity of your lefty version of how I should or should not talk. I tell it like it is, from my point of view. If you have a different view, make a comment and let’s discuss it rationally. If you start calling names, your comments will NOT be published. Keep it civil or stay away.

      Do you believe insulting a person whom you’ve never met and know nearly nothing about civil?

      I also find it odd in your description that you do not call yourself a Christian or a follower of Jesus, etc…, yet you’re lecturing Luke on what the Bible teaches. I would think if you were a biblical Christian, it would be at the top of your list of WHO you are.

      Perhaps your purpose for responding multiple times to Luke is to simply generate traffic to your website.

      Regardless, I would encourage you to read the vast archive from Luke’s Faithful and Fruitful blog–if you do, you may change your opinion of him and why he wrote about Matt Walsh as he did.

      1. Okay, fair enough. I’m a Christian. I’m not a minister but was for a short time. On my blog, I don’t claim being a Christian because it’s not relevant to my (political) blog. I generally don’t get into religious debates when dealing in political matters. Because I don’t claim, in my blog, to be Christian, doesn’t lessen my credibility to speak about Christian issues.

        I came across this post from Facebook, I believe. Because I have a WordPress blog, my comments come from me being logged in as a WordPress user.

        Now, you leave me to wonder if you called Mr. Simmons on the carpet for making statements about Matt Walsh, someone he admits he doesn’t know, just as I don’t know Mr. Simmons.

        When it comes to Bible study, I really don’t care how much one studies it if the conclusions they draw are false or incorrect. Mr. Simmons assessment of Matt Walsh, I believe, are ill founded. Mr. Simmons seems to draw the conclusion that Jesus wouldn’t call names and be brutally honest with sinners and/or evil doers. I posted several scriptures that shows Jesus did exactly that.

        Because you’re a fan of Mr. Simmons, I get why you wouldn’t want others to criticize his writings. For that, I would say, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Matt 7:4

        Finally, you wonder if I’m posting because I want to draw traffic to my site. Well, that never hurts BUT no, I’m responding because I disagree with Mr. Simmons criticizing other followers of Christ because he doesn’t like the way it’s done. I’m a HUGE Walsh fan because he speaks the truth and in unashamed in doing so. That’s very Christlike of him. To say different is either not knowing how Jesus actually spoke to the hypocrites, ignoring that He actually did call names, or there’s a different agenda at play.

        I believe Mr. Simmons may have wanted his critique of Matt Walsh to appear in the rankings of Google or other search engines to draw attention to himself. He also made his statements so people like me would post my comments. Either way, he opened the door. I stepped in.

      2. Appreciate your reply. Actually, if you read some of the earlier comments, you’ll see that I did encourage him to dialogue directly with Matt Walsh.

        I have no issue with people criticizing anyone’s writing–you went far beyond being critical of his writing–essentially saying he’s not doing his job as a pastor and insulting his intellect. I don’t know how you square that with “speaking the truth, in LOVE” as a Christian. You could have made your argument without questioning his ethic as a Pastor.

        Lastly, and what’s most disturbing, is this comment you made above, “I don’t claim being a Christian because it’s not relevant to my (political) blog.” There’s a saying at our church (Luke’s church) that, “All of Life, is All for Jesus.” Period. Biblical Christians are not allowed to set Jesus aside in any arena. He’s either Lord of all or He’s not.

      3. I also appreciate your comments. Thanks for the dialog.

        I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my reason for my lack of a “Christian” reference. When I talk politics, I don’t usually steer the direction of the conversation to “what would Jesus do?” because most people won’t engage in religion and politics together. I base my principles on Christianity and that’s good enough for me. If I can’t make a rational political point without bringing Jesus into it, I shouldn’t be trying to be a political commentator.

        For an example, take a look at this post I made about rape, in which I could have used numerous biblical references, calling for repentance, hell fire, and brimstone. That’s not where I wanted to go. It gives non-believers the opportunity to ignore it because, no matter how correct it may be, it’s based in religion.


        If someone asks, or goes in that direction, I admit who I am. I have plenty of rationale to support my views without bringing religion into the mix.

        Onto other parts of your comment:

        Since you think I have gone beyond what Mr. Simmons has done, let’s examine some of his words in this blog alone.

        “I think Matt Walsh’s writing is usually bad for the soul.”

        “He’s kind of a young, male, religious version of Ann Coulter.”

        “Walsh’s writing lacks the fruit of the Spirit, especially love.”

        “Walsh’s tone rarely reflects the supreme Christian virtue of love.”

        “Walsh’s specialty is making a point rather than a difference.”

        “Christians will follow Matt Walsh’s lead, thinking that as long as they said the right thing they were faithful, even though little difference is made.”

        “Walsh’s blog confirms all the suspicions skeptics have toward Christians.”

        “And Matt Walsh’s tone plays right into every one [of those suspicions].”

        “But as a pastor who wants to see Christians grow in their love and make a greater difference in a skeptical world, I’m concerned that reading Matt Walsh will be counter-productive.”

        On his last point, sometimes the blunt words of truth make the most difference. I’ll share an example at the end of this comment.

        Mr. Simmons may not have been as inflammatory as Matt Walsh has been, but there’s plenty of judgement floating around in his words.

        Here’s my opinion. There are Christians like Mr. Simmons that preach love with a soft voice and open “come hug me” arms. His truths work in his world view of what a Christian is.

        There are also Christians that speak plain truth, bluntly, pointedly, and fiercely. His truths work in his world view of what a Christian is.

        Jesus Christ did both. To call one better than the other is pure nonsense. When I was a minister, I embraced people that needed embracing. I also scolded those that needed scolding. Just as Jesus did.

        Mr. Simmons should be praising Matt Walsh as one who speaks truth. He should not be condemning him for it because it’s not his style. Both styles are needed. Both styles show love for our fellow man.

        The one man I got brutally honest with turned his life around, became, and still is one of the most faithful followers of Christ I have ever known. I was coddling him up to that point. Coddling and hugs didn’t work. I showed him love by denouncing his sins and calling him to repentance.

        I don’t think I’ve gone too far. I believe Mr. Simmons has unrighteously judged Matt Walsh.

      4. I understand your perspective and while I don’t agree, I believe if your original comments to Luke were similar in tone like this last reply, I think you would be more persuasive (and loving, frankly and encourage more real dialogue. I know Luke is on sabbatical this summer, so I wouldn’t expect a reply soon. Appreciate your replies to my questions.

      5. I must admit I was angry in my first comments. To disparage a man like Matt Walsh is off base for a Christian Pastor simply because he wouldn’t do it the same way. I, like Walsh, speak in easy terms, easy to understand, and generally don’t leave any doubt what I “really think”.

        Having a rational conversation with you helped calm me but I will stand by my words, with less anger. 🙂

      6. Well said Oliver. Walsh is bold, courageous, fearless and well grounded in Christ. He is undeterred by rash criticisms of his tone and style. He is also deeply reflective. Look up his Good Friday reflections, he identifies with both thieves, He is married and the father of four children. He is a humble man with guts. He is unscathed by his generation who are so concerned about their feelings or hurting someone’s feelings where everything is sugarcoated, PC gobbly gook which lacks substance Rock on Matt, he reminds me of Saint Paul. “Oh stupid Galatians”

  16. Also, to any reader here, if you’ve not watched this video of Luke’s Easter message, comprised solely of Scripture, it’s a MUST WATCH!

  17. You made Mr. Walsh into a straw man in this article. I certainly don’t agree with everything he says, but he is a smart, articulate, and persuasive writer. He fulfills a useful role in contemporary culture by providing a differing viewpoint. Moreover, I find him to be quite brave in the way he criticizes mainstream America. You don’t have to love him, but at least give him credit for not bowing to contemporary mores and providing a useful counterpoint. To me, this is extremely important, and I think we need more Christians like Matt Walsh who stand for something. I’m not a fundamentalist, but I think the Christian message has become far too diluted in the modern world. Love is absolutely important, but so is truth. At least Matt is attempting to get one of these things right. Notably, this is the aspect that is usually abandoned in contemporary society.

    1. I do admire his courage and agree with him much of the time. I don’t think followers of Jesus have the ability to choose between truth and grace. We must strive for both.

      1. Luke,

        Could you explain that? Specifically, “I don’t think followers of Jesus have the ability to choose between truth and grace.”

        I don’t believe you responded to my post with quotes from Jesus calling people hypocrites, liars, etc. as well. How do those examples of Jesus speaking truth in a harsh way fit in with your criticism of MW?

      2. Oliver those were the Pharisees who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah despite the miraculous evidence He constantly performed right before their eyes. They were a specific audience that Jesus addressed as deserving of His words, especially since He knew the wickedness that was in the Pharisees heart and the unwillingness to repent from it. Addressing perhaps hundreds of thousands of people over the internet as Matt does is addressing many groups of people who are not all like the Pharisees. There are many type of people in that audience and some Christians may be influenced by Matt’s style to treat non Christians in the same harsh manner, or other Christians in the same way. At 58 years old I have learned in life that if you gets in someones face speaking the truth but in a wrong manner, it’s makes it extremely difficult for them
        to respond positively to the truth part. I’m sure when you think about it yourself, you can relate to that difficulty when someone spoke the truth to you in the wrong way.

  18. I have followed Matt’s posts and have liked the objective information he provides to prove his points but have had misgivings about his manner of writing displaying exactly what you said. I have decided to be much more selective in sharing his posts, which could mean I will share little if any of his posts. Thanks for your article, it helped me make this decision that I should have made a while back, I think I’ll even do a post of my own to indicate that I am not agreeing with the negative tone he uses in his articles. Luke, have you considered contacting Matt Walsh to see if he would listen to you on this?

    1. Rick, no I haven’t. I don’t think it’s necessary given that his work is public. But I have seen him respond to arguments like mine and he doesn’t seem particularly compelled by them.

  19. Ok, love is very crucial to the Christian faith. One could go as far as to say that the latter is only made possible, by the former. When I discipline my daughter, I react differently then if I were trying to get someone’s attention on a battlefield. My point is, this war is loosing ground. Many soldiers are going soft, shutting their eyes, even making excuses. The time for politely asking Christians to take a stand is over. There comes a point when we need to “toss the temple tables “. For far too long we have shown the world a soft, passive, watered down version of Christ. Please do not missunderstand, as I previously stated, love is the life blood of Christianity. However, we are called to “be in the world, but not of it.” There are many people who show love, genuinely, that do not practice a Christian faith. There are also many who claim faith, but live contrary lives. What Matt (seemingly ) is trying to do, (in my opinion ), is cut through the years of keeping silent. Like it or not, we are living a spiritual battlefield! There is little time for holding the hands of those who should be holding swords! Open your eyes! God calls us to different ministries, uses individual spiritual gifts, for those lives we are to minister to. A worker at a woman’s shelter has a different way of relating, than a football chaplain. The shelter worker is not weak for being gentle, nor is the Chaplin lacking in love for being loud with his “flock “. Neither are wrong, just specifically designed for a purpose. No person is infallible, I make no such claim about Matt Walsh. What I am saying is that he is expressing what needs to be said, what too many are too weak to say, and makes no apologies for it. I say good on you, Matt! Luke warm is detestable, and shall be spat out! I am not meaning to say that every Christian should follow his example, rather that we need to search out our mission field, and do our best with what God has given us in whatever capacity we can. You may feel he lacks compassion, I feel believers today lack backbone. That is my 2 cents, take it or leave it.

    1. You say: “Neither are wrong, just specifically designed for a purpose.” That is one of Luke”s points, I think – or maybe someone who was supporting his POV. Matt’s blog is public – out there for all – it is not being read by a specific audience (nursing home or football team ). If it does not speak the truth in LOVE, it could be hurtful, unhelpful and fall into the World’s negative and wrong view of Christians.

  20. I am an atheist. But I loved my sweet grandmother who believed with passion in her Lord. And my aunt who power walks at 88 praying the rosary. People find great solace and comfort in their faith and I applaud it, admire it and am even envious.

    But every single time I read the venom in the message of Matt Walsh, I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of Christianity, the mean-spirited attacks, the vitriol of the message and the reality that smacks me in the face: Religion is misused as justification for hatred against groups people hate for reasons having nothing to do with scripture.

    Matt Walsh and his self-righteous, incendiary rhetoric to whip up bigotry and banish all those he deems unworthy (of course, he deemed incestuous-pedophile Josh Duggar a fine human who merely made a “mistake” – there goes that hypocrisy again!) based on HIS particular understanding and acceptance of cherry-picked scripture. Ironically, he does more to turn off the religious tolerant liberals who could broaden his platform than whatever “benefit” he enjoys preaching to his KKK-following.

    Ultimately, Walsh is transparent. He’s devoid love or compassion and is misusing religion, scripture and even the God he claims devotion to as a means to justify messages of hatred and intolerance. What a guy!

    1. Your comment reminds me of one of the biggest issues I have with Walsh and some of his defenders here: they should be trying to influence atheists and agnostics and draw them to the Lord, along with challenging “weak” Christians….but in my experience, 90% of the time, their POV includes Conservative political views as well, with such disdain – almost hatred! – for anyone who they see as “Liberal.” For them Jesus is a Republican and Christian Democrat is an oxymoron. For example, some of the most hateful comments I’ve ever read are from “Christians” lashing out at anyone who comments negatively about Trump. They love Ann Coulter and her ilk.

  21. Matt Walsh is the best thing that’s ever happened to a “blog.” If Christians can’t handle the truth then they are doomed to be sucked down into the vast vortex of evil in this society. “Love” isn’t the answer unless it’s Jesus’ love IN us being reflected into the world. And love isn’t the same as licence.It takes wisdom to divide the truth from the lies.

    “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Matthew 10:16

  22. Luke Simmons – I did not find your critique of Matt Walsh to be particularly loving, kind, or gracious. I did consider your message to be critical, judgmental, and hypocritical. Matt Walsh is flawed just like the rest of us, including you, but I do believe he makes a difference as well as a point in his writings. Putting a “loving” label on sinful actions can not negate the truth of God’s Word. The LGBT mantra has been “Love Wins”, when in reality, they are celebrating their real ideal which is “Sin Wins”. We can be loving, but if we are not balancing that with the truth of God’s Word, we could be complicit into loving sinners into Hell. It seems to me that you are trying to shut down Matt Walsh and anyone who dares to share his posts. What’s loving about that?

  23. I agree with this whole-heartedly. As an evangelical Christian, I want to be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a dove when it comes to dealing with politics and culture. Matt Walsh, in my opinion, flips that on its head — he is as wise as a dove and as gentle as a snake. Thank you, sir, for expressing my thoughts even better than I’ve been able to concerning Mr. Walsh.

  24. I mostly agree with your piece, but comparing him to Ann Coulter?? That’s kind of a low blow!

  25. I have been appreciative of some of Matt’s work in the past, and have frequently shared it on my own page, even though his tone and tenor have often been insulting and condescending. But his attacks on Christians who haven’t voted the way he wanted or expected him to in the primary have soured me on him. If he’s going to appoint himself the arbiter of Christianity and salvation, it would behoove him to at least act like one. I agree with the pastor. People who are reposting his temper tantrums aren’t sending the message they think they are.

  26. Yeah, because Jesus was never “mean-spirited” or “harsh” to anybody. Jesus always only ever had kind words to say. Never called anyone “vipers” or “bastard sons” or “devil’s children” or “hypocrites” or anything like that. And I’m quite sure that report of him stringing together cords to make a whip and chase people out of the temple (twice actually) MUST be false. Either that or maybe he forgot to look at His cute little WWJD bracelet before doing that.

  27. I’m not afraid to say that I’m a big fan of Matt Walsh. Honestly I struggle a lot with being more loving and less criticle of other. I know that Jesus’s grace shields us from God’s wrath, and so he’s not going to destroy us like sodom. But I don’t think that the sins commited there hold any less disgust. And while Jesus was always loving, I’m sure the money changers in the temple thought about Jesus what a lot of people think of Walsh. No Christian would question the righteousness of Jesus, and that’s how I feel. Matt Walsh is not Jesus, but I think of him as the guy who is willing to throw out the money changers. He is doing what is right, and has a righteous anger about things going on in the world. And he’s getting death threats for it(guess what happened to Jesus for his preaching of the truth) that tells me he’s doing something right. I believe in love, but I don’t believe it’s always the way to approach the subject. And I my a opinion Walsh is very loving from the right point of view.

    On a side note, I think Walsh’s blog is a lot more effective in telling Christians to stop being luke warm, rather that trying to be a come to Jesus meeting for non-believers.

  28. Be careful. Your post sounds quite hypocritical. I read Matt Walsh and do not always agree with his approach, but he is a very strong advocate for God’s word, and reflects courage and faith. You are basically “ripping” a brother in Christ which is sort of what you are preaching against. Also, are you saying you have never spoken an ill word toward anyone or anything to encourage change? If your child was caught stealing wouldn’t you tell them it’s wrong and express disappointment in their choices or I guess you would just love them through it and pray for the best. And for #3, it’s a very slippery slope to water down our outward convictions so as not to offend or scare anyone off. Those who God wants to will hear and see the light. I’m not saying we should be legalistic, for we all sin, but we should not sit back and wait to change hearts when it’s comfortable or acceptable by the masses. I just happened to see this post somewhere on fb, I don’t follow you, I am only showing concern for you and your sheep. We need to show God’s love, not man’s.

  29. I’ll keep this short (I tend to get windy). I really appreciate your thoughts. I used to post many political things and stirred up hornets’ nests I shouldn’t have. I’m not trying to pat myself on the back, but I have cut back to very few political comments, but you are right: often we want to “make a point,” and I am guilty of that. I will take to heart you comment: “make a difference, not make a point.”

  30. Tired of love being redefined as “a warm fuzzy unjudgemental feeing.” by the right and the left.

  31. I follow Matt Walsh a fair bit too and when I came across Luke’s article it touched on what had been sitting in the back of my mind about his writing approach. Luke said that Matt’s writing lacks much of the fruit of the Spirit esp. love. I believe Luke’s comments are accurate, Jesus spoke in tones like Matt’s only to the worst offenders of God which ware the corrupt and legalistic Pharisee’s and Saducee’s. He spoke to the crowds who gathered to hear him in a much softer tone, a loving teaching tone. Think also of the woman at the well, Jesus was fairly direct with her, but again He taught her about himself, and he directly stated the sordid details about her promiscuous life yet His manner was loving, The woman responded by running to her village and telling them all that the Messiah was there and much of the village gave their lives to Him. If you read the text with an open mind you can see his loving yet direct manner. Then there is the woman caught in adultery, The first thing Jesus did was defend her against the self righteous approach of the Pharisee’s who wanted to stone her to death. After he made them all go away by writing what was most likely their own sins in the dirt for each of them to see, He turned to her and told her to sin no more, again direct yet loving. The Apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 2:1 “Be done with all deceit, hypocrisy, jealousy, and all unkind speech.” When Matt writes his blog it’s like he believes his audience is only the worst kind of sinners like the Pharisee’s, but there are people in his audience who would respond to his Biblically accurate content if he used the same direct yet loving approach that Jesus did. But his tone of writing is too harsh and does not reflect the fruit of the Spirit as Luke wrote. Think of it this way, You have to confront a friend about something wrong they did to you so you think out what your going to say go to have that talk. You’re manner of speaking your message to that friend will have an affect on his/her response. It’s like this, let’s say you write the message on your hand, and when you confront your friend you walk up to her and slap her in the face with that message. How do you think they will respond? They might respond well but your manner is far more likely to do do the opposite, you might even lose your friend. But walk up to your friend, stand beside him and show them the message on your hand in a non threatening manner and it’s highly unlikely that he won’t respond well and far more likely he would be open to talking about it and making apologies. Matt’s tone is more like slapping people in the face with the message and I believe it drives too many to respond badly and I’ve seen some comments to him to that affect. I still follow Matt because the content of his articles are very good and I like the information they provide on what’s going on in the world, but I pray he will at some point, soften his tone to be more like the tone Jesus would write with.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: