Visionaries,
Dan’s post brought several important issues to mind.
First, he answers a couple of his own rhetorical questions with the very dogmatic, “Absolutely not.” Then, without any sense of irony, he goes on to say, “Doug Wilson is open to criticism — and almost demands it — when he says he is right and I am wrong.” But of course, in saying this, Dan is maintaining that he is right, and I am wrong. In other words, Dan makes truth claims (absolute ones) just as I do. The difference between us appears to be that I am aware of it.
It is true that I always believe that I am right, but it is important to note that I do not believe that I am always right. I know that I have erred, and made mistakes, and I have sinned in multiple ways. So I emphatically deny that I am always right. At the same time, I always believe I am right. How can those two statements be reconciled? In always believing I am right, I am saying nothing more than that I always think what I think. This is true, but trivial. In other words, always believing yourself to be right is not the trait of an excessively dogmatic personality; it is the trait of every human being, and that includes everyone who posts to this list.
When Dan objects to me saying that I am right and he is wrong, he is not offering this statement to us all because he believes it to be wrong. He says it because it believes it is accurate — or, to use another word, he thinks he is right. He believes that he is right, and I am wrong. Moreover, he always thinks that he is right. This is not an objection to him, because it is saying nothing more than that Dan always thinks what he thinks.
Second, he says “secular humanists would have waged fewer wars and produced a better world than we have today.” This can only be maintained if you restrict the application of the words “secular humanist” to the actual membership list of the American Humanist Association. But if you construe it the way we have been using the phrase, you would have to include Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Marx, Robespierre, et al. — quite a bloody crew. Secularism is the attempt to separate our public lives and culture from the authoritative Word of God, and on the altar of that separation, secularism has slain her millions. This is yet another sin that must be repented of — whitewashing the crimes committed in the name of your idols.
Third, Dan says, “Doug may say that I will go to Hell. What a silly person Doug is. Doug may respond and say I am taking chances with my immortal soul. And my response to Doug’s response would be what a silly person Doug is.” In addressing this, I should note that Dan is interacting with things that I might say (according to him), but which are things I have actually not said. But then, having created this hellfire-speaking straw man, Dan proceeds to lose the argument with that straw man, since his response basically amounts to, “neener, neener.” Generally, when you invent an adversary, the argument should go better than that for you.
Not surprisingly, this points us again to the basic issues. We are not talking about politics, or culture, or racism, or history. We are talking about sin, and sin is always the real slave master. No chains are greater than the chains of our own lusts and desires, and we cannot break free of these as long as we are who we are. In order to be set free from our bitterness, our lies, our pettiness, our anger, our envy, our covetousness, our disrespect of parents, and so on, we have to be made into new creatures. We have to be born again, as Jesus told Nicodemus. But the only one who can recreate us is God. This is why the gospel of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is entirely grace. We cannot help Him recreate ourselves any more than we helped Him create us in the first place. I was born in 1953, and I did absolutely nothing in 1950 that contributed in any way to my subsequent arrival here. In the same way, God is sovereign over the new birth. It is all His doing, and because He is a gracious and kind Father, we may trust Him to do the right thing. But one thing is certain — we cannot do it ourselves. He must be the One to turn us back to Himself, and if does not do it, we are hopelessly and forever lost.
This is what Christian baptism means — baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always points to Christ, and it represents a fundamental covenant requirement to love and serve Him. Of course, there are many baptized individuals who are not faithful to their baptism, just as there are many married people who break their marriage vows through infidelity. But this does not make them any less married; it makes them unfaithfully married. In the same way, there are many baptized individuals who are (covenantally) my brothers and sisters in Christ, but who have compromised themselves by joining in with the worship of the idols of our secularist age. I am simply trying to call them back to their true home, and to invite all those who have never been baptized to come to God through Christ.
The only way out of this fatal dead-end trap of humorless, dull, ugly, and bone dry idolatry is to turn to Christ, the source of all that is beautiful. We are all invited to worship Him in the beauty of holiness. Come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.
Cordially,
Douglas Wilson
Apologetics in the Void” are repostings from an on-going electronic discussion and debate I had some time ago with members of our local community, whose names I have changed. The list serve is called Vision 20/20, and hence the name “visionaries.” Reading just these posts probably feels like listening to one half of a phone conversation, but I don’t feel at liberty to publish what others have written. But I have been editing these posts (lightly) with intelligibility in mind.