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
Selah. But listening to Wilson on the s-word is like listening to Camping on eschatology: yeah, men and women are different, and yeah, Jesus is coming back, but um…
Please, no one make an analogy to Christian plumbing.
So Darryl, would you vote to have Ezekiel 16 removed from the cannon because of its graphic talk about sex? I know you don’t read the old testament, but Ezekiel makes Wilson look like a kitty cat.
If there can be Christian plumbing, there can be Christian sex. After all, men and women have different plumbing and this needs to be explained. If it is never discussed openly and from a Christian view how the plumbing of men and women are different, how will people know this and be able to figure out how to act Christianly about this? Even in Christian plumbing there are fittings that are male fittings and female fittings. Apart from figuring out the differences between the male and the female fittings, how could we get our plumbing correct?
I sympathize with what you are saying. You are spot on that our culture has lost a sense of restraint when it comes to “open” discussions about these private and intimate matters. And preachers would do well to exercise restraint when addressing these matters, both in print and especially from the pulpit. (As an example of not showing proper restraint: I recall once hearing about a father of two pre-teenage daughters who was livid because his pastor, in an apparent attempt to be relevant and applicatory in his preaching, decided to address the subject of masturbation openly from the pulpit in one of his sermons.) At the same time I think it might be going too far to say that “silence is golden” when it comes to the church addressing the intimate issues of sexuality and marriage. The Song of Solomon is part of the canon of Holy Scripture, and yet it can get pretty steamy in places. Should the church avoid readings from Song of Solomon in the public assembly of worship? And, of course, not only do the Apostles Paul and Peter address issues pertaining to marriage in their inspired writings (1 Cor. 7; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; etc.), but Paul, in an epistle that likely would have been read in the context of public worship, explicitly counsels Christian married couples to (in effect) engage in frequent sexual intercourse so as to avoid the temptations of sexual immorality so prevalent in the broader culture of their day (1 Cor. 7:5); although in giving this practical counsel Paul uses careful and restrained language.
So, I think the biblical balance is that the church and her ordained servants should strive to be cautious and restrained when they address these kinds of private and intimate matters, not that the church should avoid discussing these matters. So, no, silence is not golden; restraint and wisdom in expression are.
Richard, you help make MM’s point. So, now the world needs believers to explain that men and women are created differently? Do worldviewists ever listen to themselves as much as they plead for everyone else to?
Richard, you are starting to reductio ad absurdum yourself.
Double Selah.
RS – really? I wasn’t edified at all. Quite the opposite.
Doug: There’s a difference. Ezekiel 16 is holy. Much that is written these days in the name of holiness is simply voyeur. Now go figure out why Ezekiel makes the godly tremble, while Wilson and Driscoll make them sometimes groan.
MikelMann: Please, no one make an analogy to Christian plumbing.
Zrim: Richard, you help make MM’s point. So, now the world needs believers to explain that men and women are created differently? Do worldviewists ever listen to themselves as much as they plead for everyone else to?
RS: Gents, I was simply trying to do what he (MM) said he didn’t want someone to do. In stating it in such an absurd manner one I thought it would be obvious. Zrim, your plumber’s crack is showing.
Richard, since worldview is intellectual revivalism the absurdity sounded real. Sorry. But a key to sarcasm is not to plunge your tongue so deeply into your cheek as to become unintelligible.
Spot on Geoff!
@Ted: Yes Ezekiel is holy, after all its Scripture! It’s also very graphic, with God himself charging Israel with whoring after penises the size of donkeys. See Daniel Block’s commentary and his translation on Ezekiel. Many, if not most of the nervous Nellie’s Hart was referring to, would find that language offensive as well. Okay, wa-a-a-a-y more offensive! Interestingly enough, Block contends that not one English translation is faithful to the original text resorting to “enormous” euphemisms, pun intended. Which bolsters Wilsons point, and negates Harts.
Of course were Hart to be consistent, (something he almost never is), he should tell God to omit Ezekiel! Why? Because “someone might be offended”.
P.S. Darryl, the gospel is an offense to the natural man.
Doug: You are evidently unaware why the godly groan. I recommend a diet of godly puritans to exalt your love for holiness and the purity of others, and a deep drinking at the well of Phil. 4:8.
Actually, it’s not that I care that Doug Wilson has written about sex, it’s that I don’t care that he (or Driscoll) has written about sex. And if sex therapists start writing about theology, my interest will be at about the same level.
Doug, kindly “consider Darryl more important than yourself,” (Phil. 2:3-4) and your reasonable service to Christ not the role of an accuser of the brethren, but of one who “loves, covering a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
Boy, sometimes I wish “Be ye not creepy” was an explicit biblical imperative!
Doug, I know, and that story of Judah and Tamar in Gen. 38 sure is spicy. I’m just not sure it was meant to be a manual on sex.
Richard, how about we keep the sex talk between parents and children? Conservatives don’t want the public schools telling our kids about sex. Why should religious celebrities get a pass?
Geoff, I’m okay with that though I do think pastors would need to work very hard when the preach from biblical passages that include sex, almost as hard as they work when dealing with biblical slavery.
Doug, so the gospel explains your manners?
The public schools are tame compared to Wilson et al. I hope the Xian schools in Moscow have exemption forms for their parents like the public schools do (but something tells me “Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man” is required reading).
Holeeey smokes, a guy is gone for a week and misses all the intrigue. After reading through the post and counter-responses, Jared Wilson would have been doing himself a great favor in keeping his fingers in those little Chinese handcuffs when he hit “PUBLISH” on the initial post. But with his incessant defense of the propriety of his post, and then accusing his detractors of a problem with comprehension (read: non-complimentarians needs some work on book learnin’), shows just how deep this thread runs in hyper-complimentarianism. I have often benefitted from listening to the wisdom of my wife, who read Doug Wilson’s words in horror. What Wilson peddles isn’t complimentarianism, it’s ham-fisted chauvinism of the most pig-headed and insensitive and biblically indefensible variety. I am absolutely baffled as to how a husband can at once conquer (et.al) his wife and lay his life down for her following Christ’s own example. Unfortunately, thinking like this flourishes in conservative churches (and sadly seminaries), and gives cover to the most reprehensible treatment of women in the name of “biblical” sexual ethics. Frankly it makes it difficult for those who seek to present a full-orbed defense of biblical male headship (hint: it starts and ends with service, and extends only to the wife, not to women outside the home) in an age that vociferously rejects not only male headship, but authority in general.
I’d get my cackles up more, but frankly it’s a waste of time. I have often wondered how someone like Doug Wilson would fare in a “Trading Spaces” scenario where he was switched with a demure housewife married to an overbearing husband who was absolutely certain that God was on his side. But, to DGH’s point, more discretion on the matter might leave more room for couples to sort out the commands of Scripture in the privacy of their own homes, under the oversight of those whom God has called to lead covenant families. But, when ordained ministers are out shouting about sex from the rooftops, it’s awfully hard to work out the private affairs of the home (bedroom and all) when pastors themselves can’t seem to muster discretion on the matter. It seems to me that dealing with the biblical ethics of sex and gender from the pastor is best handled in the context of lectio continua preaching where sex does find it’s way into Scripture, but on the measure of percentages of texts that deal with sex, the Scripture generally addresses it sparingly.
I remember Garrison Keillor on an early CD about growing up “Sanctified Brethren, and saying, “We didn’t drink or smoke or dance. We just thought about sex all the time.” That was exactly my experience among the young people of a conservative Presbyterian church.
“Sanctified Brethren, and saying, “We didn’t drink or smoke or dance. We just thought about sex all the time.”
You mean they were normal kids? Nothing wrong with a little anticipation, isn’t that what Proverbs 5 is all about… you know ANE sex ed? The anticipation of healthy marital relations was meant to safeguard the unmarried who possessed wisdom from the fool who fell into the adulteress’ trap.
ANE sex ed?! Nice. KPII
KPII..The Sequel. Ephrem goes to college.
@Jed: What exactly did Douglas Wilson say, that is so horrible? If you’re going to ridicule someone, and express your disgust, at least have the courage to say what he did to deserve your bombast. All you’ve done is call Wilson names. Personally, I like Douglas Wilson and have enjoyed his books, so I take offense at the way he’s being talked about, without a scrap of evidence.
In times past you’ve admonished me for speaking ill of an officer in the church; (although I had statements of his that I took issue with). Nevertheless, after I thought about it, God convicted me, and I had to repent, and tone it down. Now, I see you doing the same thing to Wilson, only worse! Why are you worse? You haven’t provided one example of an outrageous statement of his. If all you’re going to do, is call Douglas Wilson, names, there’s a word for that; slander.
I think you’re better than this
Doug
Ted says” Doug, kindly “consider Darryl more important than yourself,” (Phil. 2:3-4) and your reasonable service to Christ not the role of an accuser of the brethren, but of one who “loves, covering a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).
Hey Ted, while I hear where you’re coming from, but isn’t Darryl the one who should be washing feet? Aren’t those who are in teaching roles supposed to lead by example? All I get from Darryl 95% of the time, pure sarcasm and snarky comments unbecoming an officer of the Church. I’ve asked Darryl questions zillions of times, and get a snarky reply questioning my reformed credentials. Or he deliberately twists my words to imply something I wasn’t trying to import. Having an honest dialogue with Darryl is difficult.
I’ll make you a deal, I’ll try to not be so tough on Darryl, if you will admonish*him* to talk like a teaching elder. Deal? By the way Ted, I have asked Darryl to forgive me, more than once, as sometimes I have gone over the line. I have never heard Darryl ask anyone to forgive him, even though many have asked and claimed he was slandering them. Do you find that odd? Is that a red flag? I’m not sure either.
Doug,
I’ll get more into this later, but given the fact that Wilson has such prominence in the Federal Vision movement, which has been refuted by several NAPARC congregations as contrary to their confessional standards for inconsistencies with the gospel, I am not inclined to respect his credentials with the CREC the same way I would as a NAPARC officer. I have absolutely no ecclesiastical ties to him, and he has no authority over any member of a NAPARC church. My remarks to you were in the context of some things you had to say that were disparaging, and (In my opinion) disrespectful to officers within your own communion who were debating over something far less volatile than what Wilson had himself written.
Wilson’s remarks were at best imprudent, and at worst mysoginistic, and telling me that I am “better” will not budge me off of that stance. Like I said, rarely, if ever does my own wife have a revulsion to what is said on the blogosphere, which is a testament to her tolerance of a good deal of pure nonsense, but Wilson & Wilson’s remarks drew her ire… it says something to me. In my dealings with bible college and seminary men, I am constantly reminded of the ridiculous misogyny that comes in the garb of complimentarianism (which I subscribe to), that it demands response. In my experience, it is nothing less than bullying under the guise of offering protection to the fairer sex. It’s a farce, and frankly I am being restrained on my unvarnished opinions of the matter. Nothing is more damaging to true complimentarian ideals than misogyny, Wilson’s remarks were.
Yes we live in a culture that respects no boundaries, but we need not result to the rhetorical equivalency of Howard Stern to make the point that Scripture offers a way more pleasing to God. I would be willing to go toe to exegetical toe with Doug Wilson, or any other man who would stand by such foolish remarks. That is with acknowledging that Wilson does have the ability to add substantively to the question of women in the Church and home… but in this case he showed his hand. If his track record had been better on other issues, I may have toned down the rhetoric, but there are some matters that, to me at the very least deserve proportional criticism. What Wilson wrote was indefensible biblically, as much as you wish to refer to Scripture, Wilson is not an inspired prophet, and his remarks were not on the same par as even the most colorful sexual matters covered in Scripture (especially when one pays attention to how the rhetorical context of each of the “colorful”passages play out).
Your a decent guy, and one of my favorite Theonomists to dialogue with, but that never means that I will pull punches when I think they need throwing… and they weren’t directed at you anyway, they were directed at Wilson (&Wilson). So why defend a minister that your own communion (OPC right?) would consider in error on rather serious matters?
Fire away amigo, I promise, I can take it.
Doug, I can’t say I’ve ever seen you apologize to anyone. As for the snark and sarcasm, you would receive a serious response if you were actually open to a conversation. Believe it or not, you (as do many 2k critics) come across as if 2k is not only wrong but nuts. For some reason, that’s not a conversation starter.
BTW, Old Life is not a ministry.
Doug, it’s not really about you or Jed. Among other things, it’s about Wilson and his foot-in-mouth disease.
You might recall on the occasion of Edward Kennedy’s death, Wilson publicly wrote that “The life of Senator Kennedy, lived very much in public view, was a life that was badly lived.” How does that square with 1 Peter 2? It’s one thing to oppose someone’s politics, but what is it that drives those commanded to seek the peace and be humble servants of the city to speak so discourteously and to undermine instead of honor kings? It is quite beyond me how those who utter such obnoxious things seem to be so absent any sense of shame. And while I am not particularly given to it as a general rule, I do wonder where the moral outrage might be when professing Christians mutter such dishonorable tripe.
Doug, you might want to consider that Wilson thrives off being in the center of controversy. He’s a clever guy who like to stir things up. I’m guessing he would largely agree with the old attitude “print whatever you want about me – just spell my name right.” I don’t think he could quietly go off to a farm and quietly sit in a pew once a week, know what I mean? If you get upset every time someone objects to what he is doing, you’re going to be upset a lot.
I do think pastors would need to work very hard when the preach from biblical passages that include sex, almost as hard as they work when dealing with biblical slavery.
This remark strikes me as a gold mine of churchly critique. Many Biblical themes are so far off the reservation of political correctness that one could imagine pastors skipping them rather than get tangled in the liabilities. Not only slavery, but now homosexuality, male/female roles in the church, submission to authorities, God’s hatred and wrath, God’s command to destroy the Canaanites, and loving Christ before father and mother. Those are just the ones off the top of my head.
I think it’s a pretty good point that we’ve gotten our priorities confused if we feel that any of the above need to be approached with discretion but not sex.
Conquer — surrender? I suppose that a woman must need to really put up a good fight to make her man feel like a “more than conquering” man of God.
I can’t imagine that anybody takes Wilson seriously in such matters. Like the kids that grow up not drinking, smoking, cussing or chewing but thinking about sex all the time, his followers are probably second guessing him and their relatives are wondering what kind of a cult they’ve involved themselves with.
The post by Mr. J. Wilson at the Co-Allies of the Gospel appears to have been yanked.
As I was pondering the nature of the post it dawned on me that perhaps the seminaries attended by Mr. J. Wilson and Mr. D. Wilson indoctrinated them with the views expressed. Then again, it may have been the advisor in their respective Ph.D. programs that deeply impressed them? Can anybody shed some light on this?
Sex is a lot like politics. If a minister teaches the Law and the Gospel wise men and women can kind of figure the rest out for themselves.
Discretion is always appropriate, espcially with regards to the things that go on between husbands and wives. Most of the pagans I know do not even talk about what they do or don’t do with their wives. Don’t know, don’t need to know, don’t want to know.
Darryl, your the teaching elder, does the gospel explain your manners? Who is held to the higher standard, me or you? Why is it okay for you to slander Douglas Wilson, without laying a charge?
Doug, like I say I don’t recall any apology (much less respect) from you.
Zrim said:
“You might recall on the occasion of Edward Kennedy’s death, Wilson publicly wrote that “The life of Senator Kennedy, lived very much in public view, was a life that was badly lived.” How does that square with 1 Peter 2? It’s one thing to oppose someone’s politics, but what is it that drives those commanded to seek the peace and be humble servants of the city to speak so discourteously and to undermine instead of honor kings?”
GW: I understand your concern and think that Wilson was perhaps unwise to make a comment like that about a public official (at least in the way he expressed himself). However, I also think you may be confusing the criticism of a political position held by a government leader (on the one hand) and criticism of said official’s personal conduct (on the other). Maybe I’m misreading Wilson’s intent (I don’t know the context of the blog or article wherein Wilson made that comment), but it looks to me like he was criticizing the late Senator’s personal behavior more than he was the political positions the Senator took. And if this was the case then I would tend to agree with Wilson’s assessment of the Senator’s personal moral behavior (or lack thereof). (I would also be critical of many of the late Senator’s political views as well, but that’s another topic for another time.)
I also think you may be misunderstanding the intent of passages like Rom. 12 and 1 Pet. 2. Are we to honor and submit to those in positions of God-given authority? Yes, of course. But does that mean we may never criticize the personal behavior of our public leaders (whether they be politicians or ministers of the word or other such public officials)? Of course not. Does the fact that Rev. Wilson is an ordained Minister to whom respect is due by virtue of his ministerial office mean that he is to be insulated from personal criticism for his personal behavior or for the way that he conducts himself in his ministerial office? Of course not. In fact, you yourself have publicly criticized him on this public forum. Yet you will not find me rebuking you for breaking the biblical command to honor those in positions of authority, such as Rev. Wilson, simply because you have publicly criticized him. Likewise, just as Ministers of the Word (and other church officers) may be publicly criticized for moral misconduct and/or for conducting themselves in a manner unworthy of their office (for example, by teaching heresy or neglecting to fulfill their ordination vows, etc.); and just as such public criticism, if justified and offered with care, does not necessarily dishonor their persons or their office; so the civil magistrates as God-ordained officers of the state may likewise be criticized for moral misconduct in their personal lives and/or for conducting themselves in a manner unworthy of their calling as civil “minister(s) of God” (Rom. 13:4, KJV) (for example, by immoral conduct that degrades the dignity of their office, taking bribes, promoting injustice, lying, etc.). And, as with justified public criticisms of Ministers of the Word, justified public criticisms of ministers of the common grace civil realm (i.e., the civil magistrates) do not necessarily dishonor either their persons or their office. (Or do you think we should be more hesitant and cautious about criticizing politicians, like Senator Kennedy, than we are about criticizing Ministers of the Word, like Doug Wilson? If so, why? And if politicians are to be insulated from all public criticisms as part of showing them “honor,” should not Ministers of the Word be even more insulated, since the office of Minister of the Word is even more inherently honorable, given that it deals with eternal things?)
One final thing: Be careful about appealing to scriptural commands to “honor kings.” As you know, Senator Kennedy was not a “king,” but an elected representative of the citizens who put him in office. In other words, in the American system our congressmen work for us and are accountable to us. Ultimately we (the taxpayers) are their employers; in a sense they are our employees. (We are citizens, not subjects.) We pay their salaries through our taxes. They are rightly called public “servants.” Thus (as part of their accountability to us) they may be criticized by us for their performance in office and their personal conduct (particularly where such conduct compromises the dignity or integrity of their office or violates their oath of allegiance to the Constitution). Yes, we are to honor our government leaders (including those in congress); and yes, we are to be careful and respectful in the way we voice our criticisms. But at the same time it is simply wrong (both exegetically and politically) to imagine that biblical requirements to honor those in authority somehow shields such leaders from justified criticisms. On the contrary, valid criticism can actually be a way of showing honor (at least honor for the office).
Geoff, my point was about discretion and manners. The context of Wilson’s words was in the wake of Kennedy’s death. I’m not aware of even any of Kennedy’s harshest political opponents having the temerity to speak in such an unbecoming way given the gravity of personal loss to a man’s family. Kennedy clearly wasn’t under Wilson’s moral or spiritual jurisdiction, so on what grounds would he have to comment like this? And even if he did, wouldn’t decorum demand a much more private assessment? So what exactly was the point of such words? And this has nothing to do with a constituent criticizing a public official, since Wilson doesn’t merely speak as Joe American but as one who presumes to speak on behalf of God. His burden is higher than those of us who don’t make that presumption. And since I’m not under Wilson’s jurisdiction, I fail to see how my public criticism is a problem.
I do appreciate your points. But I also wonder if they tend to explain away the rather obvious discourteousness Wilson displayed in light of a rather plain command to honor civil magistrates. It was really bad form, which seems in keeping with his awkward tendency to fancy himself an historian and sexpert.
Wonderful post Geoff!
Zrim, it would help if you would produce some evidence, instead of winging it from memory. As the old saying goes, “the palest ink is better then the best memory”.
And Brother Jed, you’re wife is probably wise, sweet, and wonderful, but just because she’s mad at Wilson, is no reason for you to assault him. Could someone please tell me what Wilson said, that is so horrible?
Darryl, a couple years ago, I got carried away on a few occasions blasting both you and Zrim over at Greenbaggins. My disagreement with you turned into me berating you rather harshly. I stepped over the line and Brother Jed was nice enough to point out the error of my way, and I ended up apologizing and asking for both you and Zrim’s forgiveness. Sadly, this happened on more than one occasion. Both you and Zrim never responded to my sincere apologies.
If it seems I’m not giving you respect, it’s because one, I find Escondido’s 2K antithetic to the Great Commission, and wrong headed. So there is a lot at stake here. And I don’t like having words put in my mouth. Who does, right? And I don’t think you always fight fair. All too often you never answer what I think are my best questions.
I see you resting your main biblical against theonomy on the way you interpret Romans 13 and 1 Cor 5, which is an argument from silence. You actually think those verses hurt theonomy. Theonomy is one of my favorite subjects and is very near and dear to my heart. So to have someone like you, who is very caviler and sarcastic with you’re words slicing and dice, my emotions tend to run high. You have never even admitted you’re using an argument from silence. Both Ron, myself, and a whole bunch of theonomic brothers have pointed this out, but you never respond. In fact, you’re silence is deafening.
Moreover, I can’t get a straight answer from you, too much of the time. I get frustrated and lose my temper, and lash out. By the way, I met Greg Bahnsen in 92, and thought he was both brilliant and a humble Godly man whom I greatly loved and admired. So I get touchy when you talk like Bahnsen was nuts or “roll your eyes” so to speak when you refer to him. Maybe if you weren’t so sarcastic, others wouldn’t come back on you so hard.
Regardless, I won’t blame you, for my bad behavior. So I will really try to show you the respect that you both deserve and would exhort the body and honor God. I do feel you’re asking a lot of good questions that will ultimately help the body of Christ down the road, so you’re not totally evil
. And finally, I admire you, for allowing me to strongly defend a position I know you disagree with. Let’s both fight hard and fair, amen?
Rest in his completed work,
Doug,
http://www.dougwils.com/Exhortation/Senator-Edward-Kennedy.html
Sincere thanks for the apology. But if I could sincerely up the ante a bit, apologies are dicey things. They can be used to cover up laze. Better, I think, to take more responsibility before speaking so as not to repeat past errors. Apologies are nice but repentance, like silence, is golden.
Doug Sowers: Could someone please tell me what Wilson said, that is so horrible?
RS: Doug, I enjoy (somewhat) the arguments you present, though the flair you have is not quite as enjoyable. I am saying that to simply say that I am not attacking you or your positions on things, but when you mentioned Doug Wilson and someone telling you something horrible Wilson said, I think I have a few, but will limit myself to just one. Knox Theological Seminary had a Colloquium back in August of 2003. Men presented their positions by reading papers and then others responded. That was put into book form in 2004 and is The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons. It was put out by Knox Theological Seminary and edited by Calvin Beisner.
Douglas Wilson presented the first paper (in the book) and it was on Union with Christ: An Overview of the Federal Vision. McMark would love to read that chapter. In the context of speaking of the baptism of his grandchild, his son and daughter-in-law were asked if they believed God’s promises for that child. He then goes on to say this: “But saying one believes and atually believing are not necessarily the same thing. Children of believers are promised to believers. As we believe this promise, we receive the fruit of the promise by faith.” He then goes on to say a few lines later, “So it is not a denial of sola fide to believe the promises. How could it be a denial of faith to insist on faith?”
I find that to be truly horrible and a denial of what the Reformers taught justification by faith alone means. Wilson places the focus on the faith of the parents rather than the faith of the child. I also wonder what Isaac would think about Wilson’s claim that “children of believers are promised to believers. As we believe this promise, we receive the fruit of the promise by faith.” Are children really saved because of the faith or their parents? By the way, that is on page 3 of the book.
Zrim, thanks for the post: I read Wilson’s post on Kennedy, and thought it was sobering, yet still respectful. It struck just the right note for the body of Christ. Kennedy fought with all his might to keep abortion legal. What a legacy, huh? How repugnant! Can you think of a sin, more abhorrent to God? Since Roe vs. Wade passed in 73 America has aborted 50 million unborn babies. This is the one sin that God hates the most, just read why God purged the Amorites from their land, and why. Kennedy championed perhaps the most evil sin in America’s short history, to be made legal tender, and if we will not repent, America will not remain for long. Notice how Wilson still hoped that Kennedy repented before he died. I thought that showed the heart of a Christian man.
Doug, I appreciate your explanation and accept your apology.
You say that I argue from silence. In point of fact, I argue from history and note that no Reformed church (including my own) is theonomic. This is fairly significant since the constant complaint about 2k is that we are out of the mainstream. I will agree that neo-Calvinism is in the demographic but not confessional mainstream. 2k has yet to find the following that neo-Calvinism has. Theonomy, sorry, is completely an afterthought among conservative Reformed Protestants. I know it has its advocates and defenders. But they are not really credible among most Presbyterian and Reformed pastors.
This is all a way of saying that I don’t advocate 2k against theonomy, so you shouldn’t take this personally. I am much more concerned about the effects of neo-Calvinism (which I do think have worked into the w-w — see, w-w!! — of theonomists). I just don’t take theonomy seriously. No one in the Reformed churches is going to listen to a proposal to execute adulterers. If that indicates a failing of the OPC or other Reformed communions, take it up with the councils of the church. But don’t single out 2k as the only ones responsible for this (unless you also want to give us credit for being in the mainstream of contemporary conservative Reformed teaching).
When it comes to my reading of Rom 13 or 1 Pet 2, how exactly is that an argument from silence? It seems to me that you argument is much more one from silence. Unless the apostles repudiate the OT, then the OT is still in effect. Silence dominates your argument. Mine relies on the epoch-making significance of Christ’s work and the difference between Israel and the church. Mine is in line with covenantal theology going back centuries. Yours, no offense, goes back to 1985.
Sorry if I’m being provocative, but this is what happens when theonomists peep, because they are provocative.
Doug, we disagree. It’s one thing to respectfully oppose a man in life, quite another to malign him in death (and life). And I’ve always thought kicking a man when he’s as down as it gets was a mark of cowardice to boot.
But while silence remains golden, I must admit it’s fun watching patriarchal and egalitarian evangelicals fight:
http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/the-politics-of-outrage.html
Doug,
Wilson’s language of conquest and penetration et. al. and the total dominance of the man is completely lacking in the language of Scripture with regards to both sex and more broadly speaking, marriage where there is a hierarchy in Scripture, and male headship, but there is also mutual submission and service (with more of a burden of service for the man). Given the fact that Wilson’s words were almost universally decried by the women who read it as chauvinistic and abusive, you have to begin to take what women say about such matters seriously, it is not as if the fact that they are women that God created them as dense creatures. Doug, most women would be repulsed if their husbands demanded a Wilsonian understanding of sexual relations in marriage. The responses on the blogosphere, even ones that were given by egalitarians (whom I disagree with) only prove the point. Where were the wives standing up for Wilson, saying this is exactly how they understand Scripture to speak to the matter? To utterly reject the feedback of women on this matter is foolish in my opinion.
I not only think that he is a chauvinist, I think he is at minimum racially insensitive if not racist (given his writing on slavery) and a distorter of the Gospel with respect to his FV views on justification. I understand that you like the guy (not sure how as a Presbyterian you would give him such a favorable reading), but it does not change my opinions of him. Most in the Moscow/Pullman community that are not members of the CREC have huge problems with how he has handled himself, the college, and the church, and this includes not only Christians but also non-Christians. I could go on and on. And I am sure that others might have negative opinions of me, but if they are for the sake of my convictions so be it. I doubt that Wilson would ever be swayed by some guy on a blog who doesn’t have a favorable opinion of him to reconsider his views, his writings and public persona flow from his deeply held convictions, I just happen to deeply disagree on many levels with his convictions and how those play out in his theology and practice – that is not likely ever to change. Convictions have consequences, one is that they create strife and the breeding grounds for polemics, the only way to avoid the conflict is to drop the convictions, and that would be supremely tragic.
Why would RS think I had not read what Wilson has written about “union”? Here are some notes.
God’s law applies to many more than only those God loves
Law is not grace.
God’s law applies to the non-elect who are never in the new covenant.
God’s creation includes much that will never be redeemed but will instead be destroyed
The Lord Jesus was not merely the first to “keep covenant”, with then “us” to do the same
Jesus “kept covenant” so that we don’t have to.
We haven’t done it (except by imputation).
We can’t do it together
“Union with Christ” doesn’t mean “inclusive substitution” . The legal basis of “union with Christ” is Christ’s death for us. We “participate” in Christ’s death not by regeneration or indwelling but legally.
It is the obedient death of Jesus Christ and not at all something we are to do or feel which satisfied God’s demands.
Christ never died for those who are not elect and His death is not enough for them
God made some promises to Abraham that God never made to anybody else
Not all the children of Abraham are the children of Abraham
It doesn’t matter if the Old Testament is not “relevant” to us in the way theonomists want it to be
The circumcision received by Abraham’s children does not promise them justification or eternal life
The circumcision received by Abraham’s children does not even promise them what circumcision promised Abraham.
Now That I have Told You How I Used to Be Harsh, Won’t You Also Stop Being So Harsh With Me?
Suppose the disciple Peter explained his sin by saying that he was operating out of legal fears when he betrayed Jesus. But maybe Peter’s explanation is not right. Maybe he wasn’t. Well, you could say, Peter sure got bad results, since he ended up betraying the Lord Jesus three times. That’s why he messed up so bad, because of his legal fears.
But we all still sin. We are still all getting bad results. The justified elect are still habitual sinners. They are still not doing so well in morality, when they are measured by God’s standards for
morality. They are often still harsh, judgmental, and unforgiving.
My concern in jumping here is not only with moralistic and self-righteous pride, not only with trying to figure out if you are really sorry this time, rather I want to know how your repenting now
makes us hostages of your repenting.
What is your Gospel? Is it your gospel that you are repenting? If the law is the gospel or part of the gospel, then I have to ask if you are really sorry if you did it before….
mark mcculley: Why would RS think I had not read what Wilson has written about “union”?
RS: Why would I think you had or had not read Wilson on this? I just noted that in deference to your favorite subject.
McMark: Suppose the disciple Peter explained his sin by saying that he was operating out of legal fears when he betrayed Jesus. But maybe Peter’s explanation is not right. Maybe he wasn’t. Well, you could say, Peter sure got bad results, since he ended up betraying the Lord Jesus three times. That’s why he messed up so bad, because of his legal fears.
RS: Or mabye he denied Christ because he had never denied himself and so when he perceived that his life was in danger, he denied Christ in order to live.
McMark: But we all still sin. We are still all getting bad results. The justified elect are still habitual sinners. They are still not doing so well in morality, when they are measured by God’s standards for
morality. They are often still harsh, judgmental, and unforgiving.
RS: Let us not forget that they don’t love God perfectly nor worship with their whole hearts.
McMark: My concern in jumping here is not only with moralistic and self-righteous pride, not only with trying to figure out if you are really sorry this time, rather I want to know how your repenting now makes us hostages of your repenting.
RS: One that is given a new heart is one that repents and repents out of love the rest of his or her heart.
McMark: What is your Gospel? Is it your gospel that you are repenting? If the law is the gospel or part of the gospel, then I have to ask if you are really sorry if you did it before….
RS: It is the Gospel of the glory of God, the Gospel of the blessed God, the Gosepl of God, the Gospel of the grace of God, the Gospel of the glory of Christ, the Gospel of the kingdom, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, the Gospel of peace, and the eternal Gospel. As for repentance, one must repent of a dead heart to have life. One must repent from an unbelieving heart to have a believing heart. One must repent from following self and sin to follow Christ. One must repent from being a child of the devil to be a child of the living God. One must repent of being in bondage to sin to be a bondslave of Christ. One must repent from being lorded over by the devil and sin to bow in submission to the LORD Jesus Christ. Repentance is a gift and is granted by God to His beloved children. The children of God learn to love God and hate sin which is against Him, so they desire to be willing repenters.
One Trackback
[...] http://oldlife.org/2012/07/silence-is-golden/comment-page-1/ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]