The controversy surrounding a post at the Co-Allies of the Gospel website has me thinking that if the Mark Driscolls and Tim Kellers of the world would not write books about marriage and sex we all might be better off. Open discussions these days of sex and marriage has nurtured an environment where Doug Wilson, provocateur par excellance, has stepped in “it” by writing about sex in a way offensive or objectionable to some. Since the point here is that silence about sex might do Christians some good, I am not going to quote from Wilson here.
I am going to comment as an aging baby boomer, though, that when I was a kid growing up in evangelical circles believers didn’t talk about sex. We didn’t even conceive of our parents or minister (and wife) conceiving. Call it the Hamlet phenomenon where you don’t want to picture what your parents do in privacy. But that notion of privacy has of course been shattered not just by the sexual revolution but by cultural assumptions about the goodness of intimacy and transparency and the badness of hang ups or uptightness.
The literature on marriage and sex from Christians is from one angle, then, not a reflection of the Lordship of Christ over all areas of life. It is instead a further indication of Christian capitulation to a culture that lacks restraint about private matters. Just as the 1950s knew something (though imperfectly) about distinctions between religion and politics, so that era also could distinguish between the living room and the bedroom. The United States (and probably the West more generally) was better for it.
68 Comments
Silence is Golden? Sometimes it is yellow! Our OPC pastor, ATL, preached a great sermon on sex 7/22. Comm. #7. As he preached I thought of the rising power of those who consider criticizing men “marrying” men, etc. as hate speech. So is the 7th commandment and Romans 1, it seems! I am no prophet, but as an octogenarian I forsee our good pastor, aged 51, and many others, one day soon, having Gov’t spys coming to churches and hauling off faithful pastors for their “illegal hate speech”. What do we do then, Darryl and certain mostly silent 2K buddies? Should we wait the year or 2 until this happens? Or should we stop some of the needless battles between Brothers on OLT and FIGHT? So much more heat than light @ OLT, I think! I took a week’s vacation from OLT hoping wise, kind men like Jon and Geoff would grow in number. My hopes were dashed. Let’s wake up, guys, and DO something! Love the many friends and kin God gave me and dear wife of 59 years. Let silence not be yellow! Lets try to SURVIVE and not mimic The Third Reich silent church folks who “sang a little louder” as the death trains passed nearb! With tough love, Old Bob
Bob, and just where exactly do you see by good and necessary consequence a scriptural imperative to FIGHT!!!? Do you not believe God’s word? Do you not hear what Paul (Rom 13) and Peter (1 Pet 2) say? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want the government to silence the church in her proclamation of God’s word. But I also want Christians to follow God’s word. Could it be that I am really more biblical than you?
Bob, not to trivialize your worries, but don’t you think the American arrangement has a great way of keeping government agents from hauling away pastors? That’s not to say perfect, but if Fred Phelps is free, alive and well (not to mention crazy) after all these years then something tells me yours and mine aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Has anybody yet quoted 1 Cor 12:22-24 as a biblical recommendation against sexual transparency? Or is that too w-w?
Dear Darryl and Zrim, Thanks for responding to Old Bob! I see that OLT has gone back to “more important matters” (JoePa) than the things I talk about from time to time.
What I am about to say may not seem like direct answers to your points. Like Darryl’s asking if I think I am more Biblical than he. I hate to sound so proud, but I think I have learned a thing or 2 in the 56 years between 1956 (his y.o.b?) and 2012. I guess I have to give a reluctant “Yes” to Darryl’s embarrassing (sp?) question. I also hate to say that I don’t think “humility” is one of Darryl’s greatest achievements! So many verses confirm that our Lord Jesus is Creator. This is our Father’s World, and His Sons! So, seems to me, we should fight against the growing list of outrages in His world. One of many things we, His people can do— Go only to Chick-Fl-A when we eat out. Sing Truett Cathy’s courageous song. OK, take off our church hats, but DO it! I speak out wherever I can about the great nearly 60 years of marriage God has given Elaine and me. One man/ one women is the ONLY way! Sorry, Darryl, you have fussed at me more than once for getting autobiographical. When I get back home from “my” terminal at the library, Elaine always asks, “Well Bob, did you SIN again?” (Visit scrappy, sometimes trivial OLT). Today I will have to admit, “Yes!” Many days it is “No”. Sorry for being ugly! Again! I will try harder when and if I ever visit OLT again. Love (tough?), Old Bob
Bob, how about when we go out during our six days we dine anywhere we please, but on the seventh day we only go out to sup at a Reformed church? The latter is actually how God would have us fight against the world, our flesh, and the devil.
Zrim, no Reformed churches host “sups” around here. Are you going Sabbatarian–carrying sack lunches when you’re on vacations over Sunday?
Two-thousand-eight-hundred-sixty-six-oh-ah, none of your Reformed churches have communion? I’ve heard of infrequency, but that’s crazy.
Jed, I never implied you should ignore your wife’s concerns nor should you. However, it’s very possible, even probable that she misunderstood Wilson. Why? Well even though I didn’t read the Wilson article about penetration and conquest, I’m sure he is not a male chauvinist, nor a racist; because I’ve read enough of his articles and books to *know* his heart, in a manner of speaking of course. His books on marriage and home schooling are top notch. Wilson would never condone a husband abusing his wife. In fact, if you knew Wilson even a little, you would quickly see that you’ve drawn the wrong conclusion. Haven’t you ever heard of “Federal Husband”? It’s a classic!
I have a close dear friend that has known Douglas Wilson for over forty years, a man who grew up with Wilson in Moscow. My good friend is an OPC member who says Wilson is one of the sweetest, most sincere, Godly men he ever met. Wilson’s books on marriage are fantastic.
Moreover, Wilson’s a regular over at Ligonier!
That’s where I was first introduced to Douglas Wilson! back in early 06, I saw Wilson in one of Sproul’s round table discussions… R.C. Spoul loves Douglas Wilson and knows him far better than anyone of us. R.C. Sproul would be the first to tell you, that you have Wilson all wrong.
Even though R.C. Sproul is not FV, he has invited Wilson to speak at Ligonier many, many, times during the FV trials. Many more times than he’s invited Michael Horton DGH, or Scott Clark, let alone Lane Kesiter. Do you believe for one second that R.C. Sproul doesn’t understand justification by faith? If Wilson was really a heretic, wouldn’t RC Sproul know? Would they still be good friends? Of course to ask these questions is to answer them.
I was impressed by Wilsons “Black and tan”, his master work on the antebellum south, and I highly recommend this book for everyone at “Old life”. I guarantee you all, if you read the book, you will have a new respect for Wilson. Perhaps even admiration. Jed please don’t settle for rumors, read his book. You can down load it for free.
It’s a marvelous book written from a Christian perspective about the antebellum south, it’s sensitive, insightful, poignant, and challenging, not to mention historically accurate. Shouldn’t our understanding of history, be contextualized through our understanding of the Bible?
In “Black And Tan” Wilson attempts to answer the question: How could the predominately “christen” south be so wrong when it comes to slavery and the less Christian north get this issue, right? Or were they wrong? Can slavery ever be ethical? As a Nation, America’s still struggling with how we are to morally understand our past, amen? Wilson answers some very dicey questions, with his Bible open. Even if you won’t go all the way with Wilson, his book is useful, and will cause you to think.
Now Jed, when it comes to FV, as you know *every* FV man has been exonerated by the PCA. While I’m not comfortable with everything, *every* FV spokesman has made, I think the FV is a tempest in a tea pot next to the Escondido 2K debate. This is where the action is
I found Wilson’s “Reformed Is Not Enough” very useful. Lane Kiester critiqued RINE chapter by chapter interacting with Wilson on both Greenbaggins and Blog and Mablog. I highly encourage you to read the back blogs through 07 into 2010. Wilson more than held his own. But you should read the back and forth.
Lane wound up giving “Reformed Is Not Enough” a clean bill of health! Saying and I quote, “Douglas Wilson is not a heretic even though I wouldn’t ordain him”. And TE Keister was one of the prosecutors at Peter Litehearts trial! Now it is *also* true, that a few months later, Lane recanted his former position because he thought Wilson denied justification by faith; by not acknowledging the law, gospel hermeneutic. This just goes to show, how hard it is, for some people to understand justification by faith alone. Lane couldn’t catch this apparent denial of justification by faith alone on his first reading of Wilson’s book, even as he was interacting with Wilson!
So finally Jed, I beseech you to read a couple books by Wilson. Read Federal husband and I venture you will love it. And then like me, you can intelligently defend Wilson from misguided attacks.
Keep pressing on
Doug
I’ve met Wilson in person as well and he is a nice man. He is pretty slick, though, which is how he is able to stay in the good graces of both R.C. Sproul & some of the hardcore men in the FV camp. Keep in mind that he came out of evangelicalism not that long ago and may still be evolving. One thing I do know about him and his church is that they are 100% driven by their postmillennialism, which has huge implications for his ministry and worldview, particularly when viewed against Reformed churches that are amillennial and sympathetic to 2K.
Also keep in mind that as Sproul gets older he may become more accepting of things he wouldn’t have accepted when he was younger. It happens to the best of men.
Doug, you seem not a little smitten. Have you ever heard of the dangers of celebrity and good old boyism?
Ugh, Doug: “Sweetest man”?
I remember meeting someone and telling my then-pastor “He seems like a good guy.” Answered my shrewd pastor: “He’s in sales. It’s his job to seem like a good guy.”
Doug Sowers: Even though R.C. Sproul is not FV, he has invited Wilson to speak at Ligonier many, many, times during the FV trials. Many more times than he’s invited Michael Horton DGH, or Scott Clark, let alone Lane Kesiter. Do you believe for one second that R.C. Sproul doesn’t understand justification by faith? If Wilson was really a heretic, wouldn’t RC Sproul know? Would they still be good friends? Of course to ask these questions is to answer them.
RS: Sproul had a stroke a few years ago. Since then Ligonier ministries had a fairly major scandal. I wouldn’t argue that Sproul does not understand justification by faith alone, but it may also be the case that he has not spent a lot of time reading Wilson. It may be that he has not read or heard Wilson in some of his “interestesting” areas.
Doug Sowers: Now Jed, when it comes to FV, as you know *every* FV man has been exonerated by the PCA. While I’m not comfortable with everything, *every* FV spokesman has made, I think the FV is a tempest in a tea pot next to the Escondido 2K debate. This is where the action is
RS: The 2k debate is not an issue with the very nature of Gospel at the heart of it. The PCA has its struggles with many things and does not appear to be willing to take a strong stand on the WCF. For example, there is Tim Keller. David Engelsma has written a book on Federal Vision and it is entitled: Federal Vision Heresy at the Root. “The theology that calls itself the federal vision is a grave threat, if not the chief threat, to the Reformed faith–the Reformation’s gospel of grace–in our time. The heretical fruit of this theology is the bold teaching of justification by faith and works. Its heretical root is the doctrine of a conditional covenant.” Once again, “This theology denies all the doctrines of sovereign grace, centering on justification by faith alone.”
Yes, Doug Wilson is a very nice man, not to mention intelligent and articulate. He is able to smooth over differences and leave people confused. But that just means that people should be careful of a man whose doctrine is “favorable to, and closely allied with, the new perspective on Paul.”
@Erik, I happen to be postmillennial as well, and that’s probably a huge reason why I like Wilson so much. We track, when it comes to our understanding of Old Testament typology and prophecy. Great minds think alike, amen? I’m just kidding, kind of
@Zrim, just because I admire Wilson, (and I do) doesn’t necessarily mean I’m into hero worship. Perhaps it’s just a simple as we both share, theonomic postmillennial leanings, (which were thriving in me, long before I ever heard of Wilson) I agree with him theologically!
But even if *we’re* (Wilson and me) both wrong in our understanding of eschatology, I still agree with you’ll in 99.7% of crucial doctrinal issues. I’m Presbyterian like most of you. I hold to the WCF with maybe an exception or two.
Doug, and are those theonomic exceptions 19.3-4 and 31.5 for good measure?
But crucial-doctrine-Doug-Sowers might be interested to know that others who are Wilson fans (click the home link for proof of Wilson fandom) also aren’t so sure the Protestant Reformation matters these days. Evidently, instead of the doctrine of justification being central, it’s the doctrine of man. Which is another way of saying cultural concerns transcend the doctrinal (hello, liberalism). Since Wilson is no champion of Reformed soteriological orthodoxy, little wonder those who think the Reformation is effectively over and given way to culture war are attracted to his culturalism.
http://clearnotefellowship.org/WhoWeAre/DefiningPositions/GapIssues
And when I read all those points, I sure hear a lot of Doug Sowers. Do you share with your fellow Wilson fans the idea that that the centrality of doctrine of justification has been replaced with the doctrine of man?
So, Buddha said, “Silence, is Golden”
Zrim, I do not take an exception to 19: 3-4. Moreover, the men who penned our confession were very sympathetic to theonomy, if not down right theonomic themselves. So unless you’re accusing them of being irrational, and writing a confession that they disagreed with, then the confession at 19:3-4 can’t mean what you *think* it means. Think about it Zrim. Look at the laws they passed! They were theonomic according to Kline. Therefore, you need to ask yourself, “What am I missing”?
It really comes down to ones definition of “general equity”.
So Zrim, if you want to be rational, then you need to come to grips, that 19:3-4 can’t be apposed to theonomy, unless you want to accuse our reformers of talking out of both sides of their mouths, God forbid. Frankly, this argument that theonomy isn’t in accord with 19:3-4 is the most ridiculous assertion I can imagine. Just look at the laws that were passed!!! Nuff said!
Doug, so then the revision to 23.3 that drops completely the magistrate’s task of suppressing idolatry and blasphemy (or the revision to Belgic 36)? But at least 2kers can admit, along with Kuyper, that the Reformers got it wrong on the magistrate, which seems far better than banging theonomic squares into 2k circles.