How Bad Theology is Incentivized

Written by Douglas Wilson

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:05 am

"When men follow a teacher like Jezebel of Thyatira, they are doing so not because her doctrinal reasons are so compelling and her academic credentials so impressive, but rather because following her will greatly increase their chances of getting laid (Rev. 2:20). If a prophet comes prophesying wine and beer (Mich. 2:11), he is sure to get a following. And if it is a prophetess, declaring that love is grace and grace is sexy, then even better" (Why Ministers Must Be Men, p. 23).

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Kamilla - But what about the apology?

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:21 pm

Don't you know that it's past time to be teaching this awful male headship stuff? The eGals have gotten their soap box in place and are demanding an apology from CBMW for their abuse of Scripture which enables the abuse of women.

And here you go talking about Jezebel again. Goodness, you'll be next on their list.

Kamilla

P.S. Elizabeth, no, it doesn't.

dan soltys

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:36 pm

My sensibilities are a bit offended by the "getting l***" remark. Isn't there a better way to make the same remark more palatably and thereby avoid the huge distraction that it is?

Respectfully,
Dan

Robert Seward

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:15 pm

Sometimes the most blunt wording is the most effective.

Goodeguy III - Take a look at this...

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:10 pm

Typical of what you are fighting against-- http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com/2009/06/must-ministers-be-men.html

Sad, isn't it?

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:43 am

Less pointed wording would not accurately describe what the men in question have in mind. In their minds, they're not trying to increase their chances of sexual relations, they're trying to increase their chances of getting laid. The difference in language points to the underlying attitude.

dan soltys

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:47 am

Jane,
That is a distinction without a difference.

Dan

Jordan the Fierce

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:16 am

Dan,

are you saying there's no difference between "sexual relations" and "getting l**d" semantically?

Mechanically, there might be no difference, but in the heart it's the difference between holy love and attraction and lust.

I agree with Jane.

Jordan the Fierce

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:09 am

I just read this line last night and had to go tell my wife. She absolutely loved it. "Ne'er so well expressed" indeed.

Also, to echo Robert's sentiment on the use of "blunt wording," sometimes the best thing to make someone stop short and reassess the situation is a punch in the gut.

My reassessment in such situations is boiled down to this: Consider the source.
If the offending remark is from some hipster smoking Kool 100s wearing a "Jesus is my homeboy" T-shirt whose speech is littered with such "unpalatable" tidbits, I'll probably assume it's just some immature nonsense from another self-appointed, shock rockin', Alice Cooper of Evangelism.

Knowing Pastor Wilson's (should I call him that even though he's not my pastor?) character from his sermons and writings, however, I will assume that the "distraction" that has arisen is manufactured knowingly by a master teacher who is conveying a point that needs to be driven home in a way that will force us to both consider AND remember the subject.

I will never forget the debate with Hitchens where Doug, IMO, so soundly exposed the atheist's lack of moral substratum by using a phrase some find less than palatable. I also won't forget the Apostle Paul's comparison of his knowledge of Jesus Christ to the things he'd lost in the pursuit of the Savior. Different words, different teachers, same method. Shocking.

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm attacking Dan (or anyone) because I absolutely respect and LOVE my Christian brothers and sisters who are sensitive to the crass and lewd expressions that are working their way into common parlance today, even in the church. I admire those who will say to those who are truly being impure "I don't even want to step in what you just had in your mouth," just like my Dad told me when I went through that stage. However, I do, very respectfully, request that the usage of the shocking and satirical for the glory of God and the edification His saints be given the attention and respect it deserves. It works.

Rob Steele

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:30 am

It works because it surprises and it only surprises for a little bit. Sometimes a more circumlocutory expression can produce the desired effect without vulgarity. Our esteemed host has a very good ear for tone so I wouldn't worry about it.

I love the bit about absolutely loving sensitive brothers--that's the spirit! I should say Spirit!.

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:56 pm

How can it be a distinction without a difference is one is more offensive than the other? Isn't your own point that there is a difference?

Jane Dunsworth

Friday, July 30, 2010 7:49 am

And amen to what has been said about loving sensitive brothers.

dan soltys

Friday, July 30, 2010 4:28 pm

Thanks Jane, Rob, and Jordan.

-Dan