Just Between Us Girls

Introduction
Comes now Rachel Miller, she of the quantitative analysis fame, and attempts a drive-by post at The Aquila Report.

She wants to know what people like about me. This is, it must be admitted, a difficult question to answer, and so we must give it our full attention. Let us put our thinking caps on, and go through the order that she proposes. If some of the early stuff is old hat to you, feel free to skim down to the point where I warm to my subject. But this warming is not a wild forest fire — it is more like a controlled burn.

Translation: the Flaking of the Smart Guys
Translation: the Flaking of the Smart Guys

Skim Through If You Like
Is it my credentials? My suspiousy ordination? She quotes the account I give in Mother Kirk of how I became a pastor, an account I narrated there with a fair amount of ecclesial self-deprecation. But now that the Reformed establishment has decided to play hardball with me, I will merely report that my irregular ordination papers are filed in the same cabinet with those of Charles Spurgeon, who was never ordained, John Calvin, who was quite possibly never ordained, and John Knox, who was ordained a Roman Catholic priest, but called to the Protestant ministry by a pack of refugees in the middle of a hostage crisis. And I will merely note in passing that contemporary serminaries apparently don’t teach historic Reformed ecclesiology any more.

Would it be my views on slavery? Time for all my friends to look coy, dig a little divot in the carpet with their toe, and say, “Nooooo. Whhhyyy?” She quotes a few passages from Southern Slavery As It Was, not because she is exactly wanting to get at my thoughts on the subject, because that would be no fun, but rather because she is looking for flammable material to contribute to this little auto-da-fé we got going here.

After the ruckus surrounding Southern Slavery As It Was, I reissued my thoughts on that whole topic in an exapanded work called Black & Tan. Anybody who wants to know what I think on the subject, after it was thoroughly winnowed by the controversy, should actually cite that book, and not the previous one. But that would lead to other problems because Black & Tan was blurbed by one of America’s leading historians, who said it was the greatest thing since French toast. I would tell you who that historian was, but modesty prevents.

Is it, she wonders, my plagiarism? She points out that there was a citation problem in SSAIW, and then she concludes that it was the fault of Steve Wilkins, my friend and co-author. So why did she bring it up then? In the follow-up book, Black & Tan, all the citation problems are exhaustively addressed in an appendix to that book, wherein Steve takes full responsibility, and I don’t let him. This means that because Rachel Miller does not refer to that appendix, she is either unaware of it, or aware of it and silent. If the former, she is writing on a subject that is over her head. If the latter, she is being disingenuous.

Her next point is the whole Federal Vision thing, which she surveys in a manner that requires us to speak of its inadequacy in superlatives. She says: “Because Federal Visionists deny the distinction between the law and the gospel and because they teach that all who are baptized are united to Christ, they deny justification by faith alone and teach baptismal regeneration.” The only problem is that I affirm the distinction between law and gospel, affirm sola fide, and deny sacramentalist regeneration. Other than that, her critique is fine, I suppose.

She left out the fact that since 2007, I have written two books that would make this perfectly plain — Against the Church and Westminster Systematics. These are not books that need to be read by everybody, but they are two books that need to be read by anybody accusing me of being out of accord with the Westminster Standards. She does cite the Joint Federal Vision statement, and if she will take a moment to look at the coda on intramural disagreements at the end, she will there locate the source of her confusion.

She then wonders if people like me because of paedocommunion. I do believe in child communion. This section of her piece is admittedly short, but she gets through it without perpetrating any major outrages on the truth. Well done.

Is it my approach to patriarchy? That could be, actually. Miller actually made a good, representative selection of quotations here when she cited me. Sounds good. Sign me up.

Is it what I say about marriage? Ah, we veer off again. She posts a number of quotes from Reforming Marriage that do represent what I think. She concludes that chain with a clanker quote that out of context doesn’t come off well at all, and years later doesn’t do so hot in context either. I will come back to that quotation in a minute.

Would it be my views on sex? This question is asked so that she can bring up the Notorious Quote from Fidelity which includes — smelling salts, please — “penetrates, etc.” Let me just say that this Quotation That Freezes the Feminist Blood is taken from the section in Fidelity where I am giving an account of why unbelievers give way to demented rape fantasies — you know, the 50 Shades kind of stuff. My positive account of biblical sexuality is found elsewhere — you know from those places that she does not cite.

Is it the way I treat women who differ with me? Let us postpone this one, because it will be where I warm to the subject in the next section down.

Is it the way that I never admit to being wrong? Now I do admit that there is a Catch-22 here, because if I argue that I do too admit to my screw-ups, is this not a trick designed to get me to defend myself again? Is it not yet another form of me trying to be right all the time?

Huh. I think I’ll risk it. There are many examples where I have acknowledged getting something wrong, but it would be best if I could just begin by citing an example from the very issues Miller was addressing here. Go back to the last quotation on marriage, the one entitled Not Where She Should Be. Here is a link to my retraction on that one. And if that retraction be too tame for her, here is a link to a place where I confess to doing some real damage with some of my mistakes.

In Which I Warm to the Subject
So how do I treat women who differ with me? I want to answer this, and then connect it to some larger issues — like the collapse of the West. The irony here is that the first article of mine that Miller linked to under this heading (Waifs with Manga Eyes) was an article dedicated entirely to a respectful disagreement with a woman named Jen Wilkin. In the course of that response to Wilkin, I had some pointed things to say about other women — that’s true enough. But Miller belongs to that school of thought which assumes that any negative trait assigned to any particular woman, provided the temptation is uniquely feminine, constitutes an assault on all women.

But did Isaiah hate women?

“Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, And walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, Walking and mincing as they go, And making a tinkling with their feet . . .” (Is. 3:16).

When I say that some women are biddies, this is not because they differ with me. It is because they are biddies. If I say a woman is a harridan, it is not because she disagrees with me about something. Other factors are in play, one of them being that she is a harridan.

This is one of the central reasons why a certain kind of feminist mind is not capable of engaging with serious thought. Were I to describe a man coming out of his apartment in a wife-beater tee, gold chain nestled in his chest hairs, would I be attacking men? Or would I be attacking a particular version of little coxcomb men?

Suppose a group of feral feminist females organize a slut walk. Bear with me — I am reproducing yet another instance of the problem. When I set it up this way, and I am attacked for despising women, why does no one notice that I am actually attacking the women involved for perpetrating such an outrage upon femininity, for despising womanhood? These are the bacchae. They will tear you. The whole point is to tear you. Going back to Isaiah, woe to those who call the defense of women an attack on women (Is. 5:20). They intend to tear you apart, but before they do it, they must tear femininity apart. And before they can do that, they must tear language apart. That is why the profoundest insults against femininity are necessarily called feminism.

Progressives have been dismantling the West for several centuries now, block by block, brick by brick, column by column, and if I dare point it out, they wheel on me and blame me for living in a ruin. They have wanted to introduce the universal corrosive of egalitarianism, and they have wanted the end result — magically — to come out as respect for women.

But as Anthony Esolen has cogently pointed out, you can’t have “half a jungle.” You can’t throw down all the walls and then wonder why there is no shelter any more. You cannot demand that everyone treat women as though they were men, and then cry foul because they are doing so.

And of course, C.S. Lewis nailed it:

“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

When Nate was in high school, playing football, there was one other team that used to suit up a girl. We had to work through what to do if she ever took the field. You let her run on by, and do not touch her. Taking a stand like that could easily have been turned into yet another instance of Wilson bigotries in play, when it was actually respect for the work of Christianity over centuries, building that fragile edifice called respect for women.

Some of the women who despise femininity know that they do. Others who despise it are not yet aware of the consequences of the platitudes they mindlessly repeat. When I engage with any women, and the treatment seems rough to you, remember that this treatment is not because they are differing with me. It is not because they are attacking my dignity or position. It is because feminism is the suicide bomber of femininity.

What Goes On Then?
So then, all these assembled reasons cannot be why some folks like me. Not one of them seems to ring true. I am admittedly something of a partial observer, but I am in a unique position to respond to the question. People do sometimes tell me why they like to read what I write. Let me see if I can reduce it to two factors.

I will state it simply first, and then expand on it. I believe that many people like to read what I write because I am clear, and because I fight.

Many dear Christians are fighting for all the right things, but they have been taught poorly, and their strategic plans are a muddle. They think they are in the run-up to Armageddon or something. Other Christians, academics mostly, are clear about the issues at stake, but they don’t fight. Still others, the trahison des clercs contingent, are unclear and they won’t fight. Or, if they fight at all, it is surreptitiously for the wrong side. And there are a handful of evangelical leaders who know what is happening and why, and who fight. I believe that I am one of them. Many people believe that this is what is most necessary.

When you do this, battle is joined. Don’t be unsettled — that’s just the sound of guns. Perhaps you were thinking of sending your kid to New St. Andrews, but all the smoke and controversy has you spooked. But look — our mission as a school is to train up young men and women to be culture-shapers and to do so despite much opposition. We teach them actually to engage with the principalities and powers. We do not instruct anybody in the arts of playing spiritual paint ball.

What my upcoming documentary (early November) describes as a “free speech apocalypse” is coming down on us. Think of that as the general election. Right now we are in primary season — conservatives are deciding who will represent us when everything comes to a battlehead. Shall we be led by Denethors or Striders? By those who fight or those who will not?

If you have read this far, you are probably one of the good guys and so let me share something, just between us girls. Don’t tell anybody. Although there have always been ups and downs, taking the last 30 days, compared to this same period last year, my blog traffic has quadrupled. This is not due to the controversies about Sitler, et al. It is the other way around. The reheated pastoral controversies — resurrected from a decade ago — were urgently brought up and in as a way of dealing with the problem of my growing influence. Beginning this last summer, because of things like Bruce Jenner, abortion and race, the Obergefell decision, and the CMP videos, the impact of Mablog grew dramatically, and something needed to be done about it. It is a dirty primary, in other words. But don’t get distracted by that — if the primary is like this, what will the general be like?

The response to this will no doubt be something like “you poor, persecuted buddy.” But actually, I don’t feel that way at all. I actually think that this is what I am built for.

157
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
42 Comment threads
115 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
60 Comment authors
James RileySandra Brickell KokeJobDCHammersGloriouslyIrrelevant Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Bryan Hangartner
Guest
Bryan Hangartner

God bless Doug Wilson, and may all his enemies be confuzzled!

Nopussyfootin
Guest
Nopussyfootin

Way back in 1999 I read the Southern Slavery booklet. I traced to all the footnotes and noticed some were missing, but I didn’t bother to say anything. When that big blowup happened, I was really kicking myself. Still am.

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Yep That’s about the way I see it.
Must do something, else we shall have all these reformed evangelicals showing up at the polls.
Worse and worse we may have unbelievers voting like reformed evangelicals.

The Kingdom, perhaps, would overtake the Palouse. Then what a mess things would be.

Perhaps we SHOULD crucify Doug.

D. D. Douglas
Guest
D. D. Douglas

I’d like to hope this settles everyone’s qualms.

#WhyAmILayingInTheStreetAndWhyIsThatTurnipTruckDrivingAway

herewegokids
Guest
herewegokids

Doug your influence though potentially damaging i admit, is becoming less and less not bc of false controversies resurrected, but 100 % bc of you consistently showing your nether regions both on and offline.

I am not adverse to a healthy dose of old school masculinity. I prefer it in fact , and I’m voting for Donald Trump if i have to write his name in w my own blood. He is all the things you’ve tried to be but done badly.

JakeJ
Guest
JakeJ

Lemme get this straight… You respect Trump for his masculinity, but find Pastor Wilson offensive.

Le sigh.

herewegokids
Guest
herewegokids

Yep. You have understood me well.

herewegokids
Guest
herewegokids

but more pathetic than offensive.

Bryan Hangartner
Guest
Bryan Hangartner

ROFL x 3,563

Willis
Guest

Donald Trump is a liberal. Anyone who supports him is either a liberal or incredibly ignorant…..many are both. Trump has supported nearly all of Obama’s economic policy
agenda

Auto bailouts? Check.
Bank bailouts? Check.
Stimulus package? Check.
Government-run healthcare? Check.
Progressive taxation? Check.
Hands off unfunded liabilities? Check.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/southernconstitutionalist/2015/08/27/trump-supported-nearly-obamas-economic-policy-agenda/

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

What is it about Donald Trump that makes you think “masculinity”? Is it the bloviating? The narcissism? The boorishness? Too bad for men (and women too) if you are right.

Jane
Member

Maybe the treatment of wives as disposable? That takes a real man, that does.

Luke
Guest
Luke

Or maybe it’s the thin skinned inability to endure the remotest public criticism, especially if it’s from a woman, without some kind of tantrum followed by an “all my fans, tell me I’m awesome” rally that has become the consistent Trump M.O. That certainly screams ideal manhood!

Job
Guest
Job

That is more of an indictment of public discourse in America. The main reason Trump has support (and the only reason Gingrich had support in the 2012 race) is a willingness to seize the narrative from the media. Scott Adam’s blog has a lot of analysis on Trump. A good starting point is the post “Clown Genius.” Here’s an excerpt: “If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

That’s all true but it shouldn’t make us turn a blind eye to the fact that the man has the character maturity of a tired toddler.

Job
Guest
Job

That is true, but our country is set up for such people.

Trump wins. Washington wins. Wall Street wins. The media wins. Hollywood wins. Activists, lawyers, and showmen win.

Honest, hardworking citizens are the only ones who take the system seriously and they lose. Again and again.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Your first and last sentences tell the story, and the story doesn’t commend Trump any more than it does public discourse in America, Washington, or the media.

Job
Guest
Job

No, but he might be useful in wrecking the Republican Party and showing its law-abiding voter base what a joke the political process has become.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Well, yes, the very fact that Trump is in the position he is in already shows us what the political process has become. It also shows us what a segment of the electorate has become, or always was. Not masculine, but juvenile. Of course Trump fans are the only ones in that category. The thing is, you earlier referred to an indictment, and an indictment is no joke. The kids snicker, but the adults know political processes have consequences and are not so amused.

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Sorry, I meant “Trump fans are not the only ones in that category.”

Job
Guest
Job

“Not masculine, but juvenile.” Yes, but we should not expect masculinity out of people who are incapable of it. Juvenile males want to see their pro wrestler win (just like Trump did when he was on WWE). Females want the top dog to win and someone to take care of them. If we want masculinity and wisdom from our electorate, then we will have to restrict the vote to masculine and wise persons. “The kids snicker, but the adults know political processes have consequences and are not so amused.” Agreed. Then there are people with their own agendas (separatists, racial… Read more »

Eric Cooper
Member

I’m praying for you during this continued battle. May the Lord provide you wisdom and mercy. May He continue to use you to His glory.

joshbishop
Guest
joshbishop

You forgot the third reason, which is that you’re one hell of a fun read. Wheeee!

drewnchick
Member

I agree that it’s the clarity and the fight of his words. And, also the humor….

Linda Mock
Member

True, there are others saying some of the same things, but not nearly as much fun!

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

I don’t agree with everything Wilson says, but I could say the same for C.S. Lewis, and yet I find him profitable to read. Wilson is imaginative, he goes out on a limb sometimes to make a point, and he challenges me. Even if I end up disagreeing with him, I feel I have been given something worthwhile to think about, and I feel that I am having a conversation with a guy who is striving to be scriptural in his approach to both the world and pastoral ministry.

Evan
Guest
Evan

“If you have read this far, you are probably one of the good guys…”

This made me feel good.

Marisol
Guest
Marisol

Pastor Wilson , I also think that you preach an incredibly radical gospel and people are drawn to that. To advocate that a pedophile not only can be redeemed BUT healed by the work of Christ is what underpins the Sitler controversy. Is Christ a Physician to our souls who can reach into the very depths of depravity and heal us or or is He somehow limited by deviant sexual sin? That’s the crux of the matter. And, yes I do say Pastor, credentials supposedly withstanding.

Tim Harris
Guest
Tim Harris

Pastor Marisol — when they realized Spurgeon was not ordained, they should have stopped calling him Pastor.
Pastor Tim (not)

drewnchick
Member

Quote of the day: “Feminism is the suicide bomber of femininity.”

Josh Dockter
Guest
Josh Dockter

“I believe that many people like to read what I write because I am clear, and because I fight.” An Amen to the fight. To those who want to push back on Pastor Wilson’s claim to being clear I would like to direct your attention to a segment of a video with John Piper and Douglas Wilson being interviewed by Joe Rigney. It is called “The Supremacy of Christ in All of Life: The Pastor and His Worldview.” Starting around 7:50 Piper is commenting on Pastor Wilson and says “This is the least ambiguous person I have ever known.” So… Read more »

Josh Dockter
Guest
Josh Dockter
David
Guest
David

Lord bless you, Doug.

katie
Guest
katie

The third reason (or maybe the first) is that you amuse. And I don’t mean that as a sarcastic but completely uninspired jab. I mean, “biddies”?? Who even uses that word? Being offended by that would be like being offended by “poopface.” Just enjoy it!

katie
Guest
katie

Also, you seem to be a Wedged Doug in Great Tightness these days.

duellsquimby
Member

Thumbs up Doug!

p c
Guest
p c

I find Mrs. Miller a thoughtful and intelligent wife and home schooling mother, who has a passion for biblical theology, which, happily for her readers, includes a commitment to a sound view of biblical womanhood. Her insightful articles, which strike against an ungodly feminism as well as an extra-biblical patriarchy view, seek solid, biblical ground. Mr. Wilson’s self-describe comments and tone may be clear and fighting, but readers shouldn’t mistake that for being heroic or biblically sound. Even heretics can be clearly bullies.

Ryan Richetto
Guest
Ryan Richetto

Dear p c, Rachel does not present a solid, biblical ground. Here is my favorite epic blunder from the Rachel Miller post: She criticizes Wilson for saying “The silly women here are perpetual students – bluestockings – and they are constantly learning, but never getting the point.” If you look at Wilson’s blog post, “Bluestocking Feminism,” he had just quoted the apostle Paul, who said, “…silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:6-7). Wilson was simply paraphrasing Paul and applying it to modern… Read more »

p c
Guest
p c

Your having a ‘favorite epic blunder’ and claiming that Mrs. Miller has a problem with Paul, lead me to believe that there is little hope of an unbiased discussion here. I wasn’t too hopeful, since this is a comment section for Doug Wilson devotees.

Darius
Guest
Darius

P C, respond to the substance of his argument, rather than resorting to logical fallacies. He made a good point, deal with it.

Ryan Richetto
Guest
Ryan Richetto

I did not arbitrarily claim Rachel Miller has a problem with the apostle Paul. Mrs. Miller demonstrated for us her problem with the apostle Paul. She did this by criticizing Doug Wilson for using almost the exact language as the apostle Paul. This shows that Mrs. Miller is the one who is biased, not me.

D. D. Douglas
Guest
D. D. Douglas

“I wasn’t too hopeful, since this is a comment section for Doug Wilson devotees.”

I’m guessing you are new here.

Evan
Guest
Evan

“this is a comment section for Doug Wilson devotees.”

Are you a Doug Wilson devotee?

Evan
Guest
Evan

“..lead me to believe that there is little hope of an unbiased discussion
here. I wasn’t too hopeful, since this is a comment section for Doug
Wilson devotees.”

…which, of course, is not a biased statement.

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

p c — I have been reading Mrs. Miller’s posts since this fracas and brouhaha erupted, and I would agree with your description of her. I think she is probably a good lady, and may have some legitimate theological differences with Wilson. However, I think she also has a mistaken impression of him, and I think that her zeal is leading her (like Paul at one point in his career) to persecute a fellow Christian — interpreting everything he says as uncharitably as possible, quoting him out of context, assuming the worst, relying on his enemies for attack quotes. (In… Read more »

Reformed Roy
Guest
Reformed Roy

I sincerely thank you for bringing the term devotee.

The whole minion thing was tripping all the wrong triggers for me.

I now gladly self identify as a devotee.

Takes off a bit of the pressure.

adad0
Member

A bit of pressure is off? Great! I bet I can guess how RR will celebrate!

Reformed Roy
Guest
Reformed Roy

I may not be as predictable as you think. Actually, I probably am. That being said, I’m serious about the minion thing. It’s somewhat of a relief to be a devotee. Baby steps.

Sleep well, fellow devotees.

adad0
Member

I myself am out of whiskey and have not been a cigar guy. So I am make bread!

Jane
Member

When you read St. Paul, you can tell yourself it doesn’t apply to anyone you know or identify with, even though when he wrote it, it certainly did apply to actual people.

When Doug says it, there are actual, identifiable types of people (if not actual individuals) that you’re familiar with, who are being directly referenced. I guess that makes it not okay.

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

I find Doug Wilson a thoughtful and intelligent husband and home school supporter, who has a passion for biblical theology, which, happily for his readers, includes a commitment to a sound view of biblical manhood and womanhood. His insightful articles, which strike against an ungodly feminism as well as an extra-biblical patriarchy view, seek solid, biblical ground.

Rachel Miller seems like a nice lady, and I think she and Douglas Wilson probably have a lot in common, actually.

Eric Cooper
Member

This Josh Garrels song came to mind after reading this. Its a powerful little clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKN7a_Wna3U

dchammers
Member

Nice connection on this great song.

jim
Guest
jim

I once saw some video with you and Piper. He was introducing you or something like that and mentioned, “a book that unfortunately some people read” referring to SSAIW. Everyone got a nice giggle from that. :)

David Axberg
Guest
David Axberg

Amen and amen

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

Listen to this podcast from last year, and I think it will explain a lot about the conflict between Miller and Wilson. http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/podcast/bully-pulpit-xl-sinister-headship I have been watching this conflict thinking Miller would identify as a feminist, or at least an egalitarian. I was surprised to discover that she actually considers herself a complementarian, but views Wilson as a proponent of the Quiverfull/Patriarchy movement, a la Bill Gothard, and a promoter of abuse in the home, emotional and even physical. In other words, she seems to view herself as attacking a man who is not just wrong, but SINISTER. When you… Read more »

p c
Guest
p c

‘When you attack a SINISTER man, you may feel justified in repeating false accusations, even spreading gossip, in order to eliminate a felt threat.” The article addresses his own comments- no one else’s. She then discusses these ideas and their implications. Not sure how that is gossip.

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

Hey, p c — thanks for the comment. If you go back and re-read Miller’s article, you will notice it contains links in which she refers the reader to her “sources.” But these are not neutral sources. One of them says Wilson “embodies all the qualities of the discredited evangelical pastor, everything except having a TV program, great hair, and sexual escapades.” Another calls Christ Church “a cult” and Wilson “a cult leader.” Another source describes herself as “an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive.” The sites are by Wilson’s enemies, they contain gossip, Miller links to them. Therefore, Miller… Read more »

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

And I am using the generally accepted definition of gossip, “casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true.” It doesn’t look to me like Miller really did her homework; she is just repeating every serious charge that has been made against Wilson over the years, deadpan, as if they are confirmed truths: “Another source explains…” Check those sources she links to and see if you think these sound like unbiased reports.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew

“I would tell you who that historian was, but modesty prevents.” – this is somewhat incongruent when delivered in the context of a discussion on citing and lack thereof.

Jane
Member

It is also obviously facetious.

Andrew
Guest
Andrew

Indeed. But is it facetious because no such quote exists, or because it’s easy to find (I followed the link to the book and didn’t see any quotes), or because of some other reason I am insufficiently perceptive to notice?

It sounds like Mr Wilson is making a serious claim, but then he ostentatiously fails to back it up. So colour me confused.

Nopussyfootin
Guest
Nopussyfootin

It’s the blurb on the back cover

Nopussyfootin
Guest
Nopussyfootin

The back cover of Black and Tan

Ryan Richetto
Guest
Ryan Richetto

From the back cover of Black and Tan: Here is a link: https://books.google.com/books?id=bjmh65MzZvIC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=eugene+genovese+the+reverend+douglas+wilson+may+not+be+a+professional+historian&source=bl&ots=zdpUMFXE64&sig=TkPE_GvJnsKWYvBk9VkOjCgdjSM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBGoVChMIgcnK0rKvyAIVTpmICh1MhQmW#v=onepage&q=eugene%20genovese%20the%20reverend%20douglas%20wilson%20may%20not%20be%20a%20professional%20historian&f=false “The Reverend Douglas Wilson may not be a professional historian, as his detractors say, but he has a strong grasp of the essentials of the history of slavery and its relation to Christian doctrine. Indeed, sad to say, his grasp is a great deal stronger than that of most professors of American history, whose distortions and trivializatioins disgrace our college classrooms. And the Reverend Mr. Wilson is a fighter, especially effective in defense of Christianity against those who try to turn Jesus’ way of salvation into pseudo-moralistic… Read more »

Susan Gail
Guest
Susan Gail

Hear hear!

Matt
Guest
Matt

People like you because you tell them what they want to hear. It’s always a safe bet.

Kevin Bratcher
Guest

Well they don’t call it “The good news of the Gospel” for nothing…

Evan
Guest
Evan

COXCOMB?!! How dare you!

Michael Hutton
Guest
Michael Hutton

Why? He thinks and he reads. He reads the Bible as authority and thinks about what it means for us here and now. Hence the popularity.

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

I read Doug Wilson’s blog in order to determine who not to read. I don’t always agree with Doug’s stated theology, but find it easy to be edified by him, even when he is saying something crazy. Having read Doug enough, it is easy to see when he is being misrepresented. As a result, I have learned to stop paying attention to those who carelessly criticize him. If they are so quick to sling baseless accusations against Doug, they are probably using similar listening skills with others they criticize.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

He should use that as a blurb in his next book.

“I find it easy to be edified by him, even when he is saying something crazy.”

~Tim

Tim Mullet
Guest
Tim Mullet

That quote actually comes from Doug. He made that observation about his experience reading C.S. Lewis.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

Ha! Well then he’s in good company.

Michael Hutton
Guest
Michael Hutton

Note to Rachel: A question for Doug Wilson ‘fans’ could really have had open comments and then we could have told you for ourselves. In the meantime, see below.

Ian Miller
Member

I thought the same thing, but then I skimmed the essay a bit more closely, and it’s clear that it’s not a question so much as a Rob Bell-ian formation of attack points with a question mark at the end. Miller (sadly with an excellent last name, but fortunately no relation) isn’t interested at all in why people actually like Doug Wilson – she wants to make people who are on the fence ashamed so they hop off on her side.

Thankfully, I’m a Baptist, so I’m not playing that game. :)

timothy
Guest
timothy

God bless you and thank you for your ministry.

Adam Kreunen
Guest
Adam Kreunen

You fight. You are clear. You are Biblical. On the occasion I find myselfi n variance, I simply think of it as two friends in the same building, just on different floors.

adad0
Member

Dougzilla. Ms. Miller sort of doubled down. She first aired out this “what’s to like about Wilson?” post on her “daughter of the reformation site” on Sept. 30. She got 63 whole comments! Some people even answered the question! Ms. Miller got 8 comments each (!) on her two previous posts, which were also about Wilson. I guess that means Wilson is some sort of “blog magnet”, even for other peoples’ blogs! As her previous unsolicited “lexical exam” post did not really get off the chair, her “what’s to like about Wilson” post seems like another attempted “lexonoscopy”, which, was… Read more »

Brandon Klassen
Guest
Brandon Klassen

>>…which, was not at all penetrating.

heheh…According to Doug (and nature) this is really a man’s domain anyway… :-D

adad0
Member

Well… I have to admit that I failed to resist a double entendre or two. (at least)
But perhaps we should put this line of speaking…well…,behind us. ; – )
Let’s try to focus on That Other Guy’s Dominion.

Benjamin Bowman
Guest

If you would like to know why I like Wilson, simple. It’s his mirth.

insanitybytes22
Member

Well said! But you forgot wordsmith! Some of us follow you to delight in the way you use words.

Shugga
Guest
Shugga

Deadline Hollywood has learned that the Bravo Network will soon begin filming the first season of a new reality series in Moscow, ID. While the title is still under wraps, executive producer Rush Dooney says it’s best described as Duck Dynasty meets 19 And Counting meets Doomsday Preppers meets Machine Gun Preacher meets The Walking Dead. When asked to comment on his first foray into reality tv, Mr. Dooney chuckled and said, “Whoever observed that fact is stranger than fiction must have spent a Sunday or two in Moscow. You can’t make this stuff up.” All the he would reveal… Read more »

John Killmaster
Guest
John Killmaster

Survivor: Idaho

ashv
Guest
ashv

I feel like Pastor Wilson is rather soft on certain issues but he’s right, at least he’s advancing in the direction of the enemy. (If you aren’t getting shot at, its a good bet you haven’t found the battle yet.)

PerfectHold
Guest
PerfectHold

Chesterton and Wilson = mirthfullian insight

Luke Pride
Guest

Thanks, Doug. It is good to remember that some of us, (me) have a danger of getting partisan spirit and looking down on other believers during the fight, and we can excuse this awfulness because we are standing for truth. Spite is easily hidden when we can excuse it because we have it for the right reasons ):
(this is probably more a struggle for me and some people I know than Doug)

BDash76
Guest
BDash76

ugh Jen Wilkin is the worst feminist…

Darren
Guest
Darren

Why do people like Wilson?
Well, yeah, clear and insightful (even when you disagree)… but above all REALLY funny!! It’s just great to see mean spirited liberals feeling all hurt, & Doug says the funniest things… they are funny because they git the nail on the head. & somethings deserve laughter. Why are “liberals” so humourless? (they’ll respond with a re-definition of liberalism – not why they are so boring).

I think some of the stuff about abortion & culture is pretty sharp and unsettling.

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

Another morning e-blast from a minister . . . . . . about 2 years back a group in WI (the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” or something like that) complained to the IRS that priests who read their bishop’s letter in church on the Catholic position on some moral questions, such as abortion, were engaging in campaigning and therefore should lose their tax exempt status. Taking a moral position was advocating Republicans ought to win. Yes, that really is as crazy as it sounds. Did we just hear a confession that being a Democrat was immoral per se? Er, no.… Read more »

Cody Libolt
Guest

Indeed. Confusion upon Robespierre. But not a pox. The confusion leading to repentance.

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

You’re clear, you fight, and you win. Also you have the best enemies. Blessings!

Darius
Guest
Darius

As for why I enjoy reading your writing, Pastor Wilson… for many of the reasons mentioned below: wit, wordsmithing, and wisdom. I particularly enjoy how you come at issues from a fairly distinct yet strongly Biblical approach, always heavy with truth yet covered in grace. Like a Nerf-covered barbell. And for what it’s worth, your influence IS growing. The men at my church did a summer book study of Future Men a few years back (between 25-40 guys each week), for example. I think you’ve hit on exactly the reason why this battleground has formed at this particular time. Keep… Read more »

Sandra Brickell Koke
Guest
Sandra Brickell Koke

You could also add these reasons: 1. Fun to read 2. You think highly of women. (This is not sarcasm, actually.) Of course lots of quotes can be taken out of context to try and prove the opposite, but a careful reading of your books and blog posts, should make it apparent that you do. 3. The advice you give corresponds to reality (as might be expected) and makes life better. Here are 2 examples from my own life: (a) After reading about the idea of “saluting the uniform” to show respect to those who should receive it, even if… Read more »

James Riley
Guest
James Riley

Nice. Someone shared the Aquila drive-by tonight and I was gratified to see such a substantial response, including a fair dose of humility. My comment: “Doug makes mistakes, like all of us, and has trouble admitting it. He’s also a genius and perhaps one of the most gifted, and hilarious, Christian writers of our time. I’m not ready to burn him at the stake, or canonize him either.”