Listen, Dumbo
Re: Your comments on Rom 13. This is really beneath you, Doug. It’s like you tries to jam as many fallacies into two paragraphs as you could manage.
1. Genetic fallacy. We don’t need to consider the passage because these people don’t really believe it. We aren’t even told who these non-believers are, but this is folly more matter who is “chanting” Romans 13.
2. Blatant whataboutism. Redirect attention to other perceived problems rather than deal with the problem at hand. What about their views in marriage (this is compounded by the fact that many people take submission in relationships other than man–> magistrate very seriously; I am one.).
3. Isolated demand for rigor. Someone has to have been beaten and imprisoned like Paul before applying his plain teaching? Seriously? Does one have to serve as an itinerant preacher before commenting on church structure? Or live a life of chastity, like Paul, before commenting on sexual morality? I’m sorry Doug but this is capital “S” stupid.
The fact is that Scripture seems to teach that we are to submit to the government using striking similar language to wives’ submission to husbands, congregants’ submission to elders, and the churches’ submission to Christ. If you want to offer some exegesis for why Paul didn’t really mean it I’m all ears, but heaping abuse on an imagined opponent isn’t the way forward.
Demosthenes
Demosthenes, exactly so. Precisely because I was not interacting with any specific real-time opponent is why these fallacies were not committed (which they would have been, for example, if I had accused a specific man who had written a book on Romans 13 of just “chanting”). I was refuting a caricatured generalization, like Jesus did with unnamed Pharisees who prayed on street corners. We do need to consider the teaching of the passage itself, which is why I have done so multiple times (go here and scroll down to Romans 13). Concerning your second point, I do believe that our attitude toward obedience and submission needs to be consistent across all the governments God has established. My point there is that when they leave out the qualifications on just one of those governments (the state), they are revealing what they consider to be the voice of their god. On the third one, I am afraid you missed the point. My point is that the approach of the “just obey” crowd has trouble accounting for the rap sheet that was attached to the man who wrote Romans 13. If they had been in trouble with the authorities as much as the apostles were, then perhaps they would have a better time understanding what the apostles were saying and not saying.
That Obedience Thing
The Lord definitely intended a gentle and kind version of submission. So, the thing actually is, Doug, that you don’t see it that way. And, are therefore hurting people and families.
Cassie
Cassie, actually I do believe that all familial authority should be kind and gentle. This is particularly important for the husband and father to know, understand, and practice. It is a ground level apostolic requirement. The phrase I used was “kinder and gentler,” which is a comparative. Kinder and gentler than what?
Obey your husbands So Doug which is it? A “plain reading” or a” clear implication? ” Do those things actually jive?
I’m thinking a good example of a plain reading of the text of Romans 16 that at least 10 women’s names are mentioned who were close to Paul and part of his crew who probably weren’t just making the coffee or planning the baby showers. By implication Phoebe was the first exegete of the letter to the Romans since she hand carried the letter to Rome and Paul gave her such glowing recommendation and told the leadership to serve her in any way she needed.
I take this as just one small example of a plain reading and clear implication.
Paul was no misogynist women are mentioned all throughout his letters and many by implication can be attributed to authoritative positions in the church. By the plain reading Junia was an apostle. Romans 16:7.
I’m curious what are you going to say when you meet Jesus and you perhaps find out your narrow minded view of women and their roles was actually wrong headed thinking on your part? What if you don’t get a well done my good and faithful servant you did a good job keeping those women in line and obedient to their abusive husbands. You could actually find out the the material you were building your kingdom with was actually straw because it gets burnt up by fire. We know how you like to play with fire. What if All the Federal husband books and reforming marriage books etc. built you a house of cards on sand instead of the rock which is Christ. It’s just sad to think how many people you have harmed in the process.
Implication, it’s a lot to build on with such arrogance in your voice. Pride comes before a fall. I mean you could acknowledge there is other possible readings of those passages respectfully. There are actually very intelligent scholars who hold the Bible as God’s holy inspired word who differ with you about the meaning of the word head. I’m sure you are har har haring right because you love making fun of people and belittling them.
I have to ask, you do know the meaning of the word implication right?
CJ
CJ, your exegetical handling of those passages can go quite well, and seem quite reasonable, until you run into the other passages that you (for some reason) didn’t cite. Our task is to submit to the teaching of Scripture as a whole, which means that we have to harmonize all the passages. It is at that point that your gentle uphill climb turns into a rock wall, and your pitons are made out of balsa wood. And you say that Paul could name multiple women who were engaged in the work of ministry with him. So can I.
There are four sets of authorities in the Bible: God, governments, husbands, and parents. Three of them—God, governments, and parents—have the right to inflict physical pain on their underlings to enforce their commands. There is nothing in the Bible that tells husbands NOT to beat their wives; the “love your wife” stuff in Ephesians can easily be interpreted to mean “do what will get her to Heaven, and if that means beat her to a bloody pulp when she lips off at you, go right ahead.” You are too much of a coward to state openly that you endorse wife-beating. At the moment even your sort can’t quite state that wives should live in constant blind terror of their husbands, but once you get some more political authority, you will drop the pretense and openly state that husbands can force their wives to whatever Husband wants and use his fists to back up his words. Please just go ahead and admit this now, so everyone can see what your really are.
Karen
Hi, Karen. I see that you are back with this argument, if we can call it that. I will just say that the way you reason, the way you handle the Scriptures, and the way you falsely attribute positions to others is a good textbook example of why Scriptures say what they do about foolish women.
A lot of conservatives, and even reformed types, seem to be celebrating the recent election of a lady for Lt. Governor of Virginia. Even showing off pics of her with a battle rifle.
I’m at my understanding that the founder of Scottish Presbyterianism, John Knox, got in trouble over calling people out on this very issue. That is, it’s a shame that we have a lady magistrate, a judgment from God. And wearing the “armor of a man” no less.
I know Knox was quite adamant on this point, how grotesque it is. Does the CREC or Christ Church take a stand on this issue?
Tyler
Tyler, yes. The CREC does have a memorial that abominates the idea of women in combat. With regard to women serving as magistrates, we do not exclude it absolutely, given the example of Deborah. With regard to John Knox, he wrote his little book when Bloody Mary was on the throne, a persecutor of Protestants. But as soon as the book was published, Elizabeth (a Protestant) took her place and Knox’s book clonked her on the forehead. This displeased her, and Elizabeth was the kind of person who knew how to be displeased. Knox tried to reassure her that he was happy with her being on the throne, but she remained quite suspicious.
If so many women really want “a kinder, gentler version of submission ,” Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn’t have sold as well as it did. (P.S. When you say “hard-hearted women,” would you by any chance mean the vamp of Savannah, GA?)
Kristina
Kristina, yes. The point you make about Fifty Shades is one I have made a number of times. The question is what was that a twisted and demented version of? But your reference to Ray Charles’ song was something I knew nothing about, unti your letter made me look it up.
I’m addressing the Obey Your Husband Post. In it, you ask: There were no abusive husbands in Peter’s day?
In asking this, are you implying that a woman should submit to a sexually, emotionally, spiritually, or physically abusive husband?
I’m not being snarky. I honestly can’t decipher from the article as to whether you’re simply making a point or suggesting a woman stay and obey a husband who is abusive. Would appreciate a clarification.
Thank you!
Brenda
Brenda, the problem is that in our time the word abuse has become a catch-all term. In our generation, the word abuse is applied to all kinds of situations—the kind where the wife should call the cops, the kind where she should tell the elders, the kind where she should apply 1 Pet. 3, and the kind where she should apologize to her mother for marrying this guy against her mother’s wise cautions. But there is an abuse that no Christian woman should tolerate. That said, the word abuse is being handled in a way that enables a disobedient generation to abuse the scriptural teachings on the grounds for divorce. To be blunt, some modern abuse is grounds for divorce, and some isn’t.
Regarding your “transgressive” post. I’m glad to see that you can still write clearly, crisply, and succinctly. I thought you had forgotten.
Jack
Jack, than . . . hey!
The Cult of Nice
The Cult of Nice is an excellent way of framing the situation many evangelical churches have stumbled into. It seems to have stemmed partially from a long held desire to make Christians look like “normal people”. Looking back, I recall hearing many stories from pastors about a specific kind of situation: that moment when a non-Christian realized that they were with a Christian and said “But you seem normal!” Cue the congregational laugh track.
One thing I can compare this to is when someone who seems straight amidst a group suddenly announces they are gay. “But you seem normal!” Not so PC to make such exclamations these days, but you see my point, I’m sure.
Is there a sinful thrill to being a closet Christian? I suspect this is the case.
Thanks for all you do,
Aaron
Aaron, many thanks.
November Rittenhouse?
Thank you for your faithfulness in ministry, especially in these contentious times. “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:58, ESV)
Do you have any plans to discuss the Rittenhouse trial this month? Seeing what the corrupt prosecution and the media have done to this young man is infuriating. A NQN polemic would be cathartic.
If not, what do you believe ought to be the central takeaway from this trial for Christians?
Thanks as always.
Bryan
Bryan, I am going to write on RIttenhouse at some point soon, and it might even happen in November. We shall see how it works out.
What Needs Toppling?
My wife and I have been discussing idolatry and what a big deal it was throughout history until probably quite recently. Meaning the business of erecting a temple and putting an idol ended up on a hill somewhere to go and worship. It would appear this was such a big deal even back at the time that Israel was delivered from Egypt that the first two commandments are about idolatry. Since man has not changed much since Adam or Noah, other than the obvious iPhone or Internet fixation what do you see is our current idolatry that must be avoided? What is taking the place of figurines in temples on mountain tops in our modern culture?
Thank you,
Scott
Scott, the best thing I can do is refer you here.
The Meaning of Resurrection
Very thankful for you. My 2020 and 2021 have been a very different thanks to discovering you and the Moscow crowd. I’ve heard you say in many of your writings something along the lines of “Jesus established his right to rule (or be Lord over the Lord) by his death and resurrection.” This is not your exact words because the idea has been in several posts and I don’t recall specifically to be able to reference it.
I fully agree that Jesus is Lord and has the right of rule. But I’m not sure I fully understand why his death and resurrection secure these rights. I recall thinking the way you’ve said it before would mean if someone else did the same thing then they would have that right.
My heart is encouraged when I read this from you, but my mind does not understand. Perhaps you could flesh that out for me.
Pardon the vagueness of my quoting you but I’m hopeful you understand what I’m referring to. If not I will do my diligence to find a specific reference.
Thankful for you brother
Shea
Shea, the way I make this point is this. If someone comes back from the dead in this world, that person is the king of this world. On one level, this makes intuitive sense to me. But I think Scripture teaches it also.
“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31)
Grape Juice?
I was amazed at the eisegesis you performed while you were trying to exegete. You know that the same word is used for wine and grape juice. So assuming it was wine that Jesus turned water into, is like what I heard one preacher do when he said it must have been wine because the host said it was the best he’d had. It reminded me of my sinful college days when we called spilling any alcohol abuse. It’s the modern mindset that quality is based on the percentage of alcohol. Do you think that maybe for the Jews quality might have meant taste? When you assume that it was wine created you are importing a modern thought process into the text. I have no idea which it was that he created, but I do know that God was clear not to tell us, and therefore presumptuous for us to assume it. I also noticed this issue with your excellent book ‘Devoured by Cannabis’ but hadn’t found the time to bring it to your attention. I hope you’re able to examine your assumptions. Godspeed,
Lance
Lance, the point is not made by the master of the feast saying that it was the best wine. It was made by his comment that the usual practice was to bring out the lesser wine after the guests were “drunken” (methysko). And the saints at Corinth were not chided for hogging the quality grape juice. They were getting drunk—1 Cor. 11:21 (methyo). Grape juice does not have that potency.
Pricing and Prices
Curious about the prices on some of Canon’s stuff. I seem to remember a couple things: 1) that all products used to be priced at flat integer values like $10 or $16, and 2) that the reason for this kind of pricing was to avoid deceptive advertising, and that the only reason to price something at $13.95 was to mildly fool the buyer into thinking the cost is thirteen bucks, not $14, where everyone knows the actual value is not $13.95. That reasoning resonates with me. But was that Canon’s reasoning? Like Biden, sometimes I make stuff up. Interested in why at least some Canon products are now priced at $14.95, $19.95, etc.
Nothing wrong with cents tagged on. But I’d think pricing with cents would need to involve some kind of set formula based on required product profit for Canon and would therefore naturally mean a bunch of weird but accurate price tags like $16.20 or $14.92 or $10.66. Otherwise, I’m for integers.
But maybe I should just ping Canon.
Thanks!
Nate
Nate, yes, you should ping Canon. I am not sure how they set their pricing now. I still prefer round numbers, as you can see in my Mablog Shoppe (and also low numbers). One theory is that $19.99 pricing is meant to be manipulative, as though the customer doesn’t know that the book is actually twenty bucks. Another reason that I have heard is that it made it harder for employees to pilfer out of the till. But that wouldn’t apply at Canon—so I would just ask them.
Revelation Stuff
First of all I want to thank you for your ministry to the body of Christ and thank God for the gift you are to the Church. I have recently wrestling with eschatology and that is how I have discovered yourself online and your views on post millennialism. I have really been challenged on my previous understanding (Dispensationalism Pre-Millennialism) and find myself moving towards the post-millennial view from listening to people such as yourself, RC Sproul and Jeff Durbin. With that said I have been wanting to ask you a couple of questions in regards to the millennial reign of Christ and structure/purpose of Revelation 21.
Q1. Could the Millennial reign of Christ be the unity of the Church for the first thousand years until the great schism of 1054AD? If it is possible, would that still be congruent with the post-millennial view?
Q2. Is Revelation 21 a summation of the victory of Christ and the new Jerusalem being the church that has God dwelling in the midst of her? Similar to how Genesis 1 & 2 give an account of the creation but with different details?
Thank you for taking the time to read my questions as I could understand that you have a very busy schedule. I hope to hear from you in the near future.
Your Brother in Christ
Mat
Mat, with regard to your second question, if I understand it properly, yes. With regard to the first question, I don’t know of anyone in the postmill camp who takes that position. It is usually applied to the entire church age, or to the last one thousand years of the church age.
Thank you for your faithful and formidable “Christ-centered” and “Gospel-centered” presence over all these years, as well as your “accessibility” on your website and the Q&A session, etc.
Would you please critique a theory of mine (certainly not original, since I am but a “moon” and not a sun )
THEORY: ALL truly Christian roads lead to the “Post-Millennial” vision.
THEREFORE emphasis on a particular view (e.g. PRE, A, POST) of (i.e. Orthodox) eschatology is largely irrelevant.
I base this theory on my (limited) observations of the effect of the Gospel on nations, societies, cultures, etc. That true, Holy Spirit regenerated conversions and revivals will always, “by definition”, result in a change in families, cultures, nations, etc. that will sooner or later affect all areas of life. For example the Great Awakenings here in America and in the U.K., not to mention during the Reformation; as well as the transformation that occurs in nations/societies where missionaries take the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time into areas of total darkness. I say that wherever the true regenerating light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ goes it will always—eventually—bring about “Post-Millennial” type changes to families, societies, cultures, nations, etc., regardless of whatever specific eschatology predominates.
Pastor Wilson, would you please critique this theory, pointing out its flaws and the flaws in my own understanding, etc.
Thank you!
Robert
Robert, I agree partially. In other words, I believe that numerous postmill effects in the world have been brought about by gospel-preaching Christians who held to eschatological views that were not postmill, or who didn’t have any eschatology at all. So I think that does happen. But I also believe that having a defined and correct eschatology helps a great deal.
Empathy Wars
Responding to “The Empathy Wars” Hello Mr. Wilson,
Let me say first of all that I am not writing with the intention of scolding you or Mr. Rigney about your views on empathy. However, I would like to offer a couple thoughts.
I think many of your criticisms are valid, though I don’t know if the correct target is empathy itself as much as the modern atmosphere. I’ve read the subsequent articles that you and Mr. Rigney have written defending your thesis. The main argument seems to be that the real difference is a semantic one, not a substantive one—people probably agree with your concept, but not with the label you’ve chosen to give it.
I think this is probably correct. I also know that sometimes provocative language can help spark needed debate. However, in this case, I think you have shot yourself in the foot here by insisting on continuing to simply use the term “empathy” without adding any qualifying descriptions (for example, “modern empathy” would be more clarifying). At least from here, the resistance to add any qualifiers looks more like stubbornness than genuine reasons. You also seem to have characterized people who strongly disagree with using the term “sin of empathy” as being overly sensitive, unsportsmanlike, or downright ridiculous. For some of them, this may be the case. However, I think they are actually in the right and that you should concede your provocative term for better clarity.
As an example: Suppose I wrote an article and released a video entitled “The Sin of Calvinism.” In them, I explained how Calvinism is when you believe that God hates everybody except a select few and that there is therefore no need for compassion for the lost or evangelism. Undoubtedly, I would get a terrifically explosive reaction. Most people probably would say that what I was describing is “hyper-Calvinism.” If I responded huffily that this was simply a semantic difference, we all agreed on the concept anyway, and that these sensitive people should just toughen up, I’m sure you would still disagree. Terms matter. If what I mean is better described by “hyper-Calvinism,” then I should not go around smashing “Calvinism” with my very twisted definition. There is also no doubt that I would probably drive people away from Reformed theology in general, no matter how much I commented that this term was mostly used for provocativeness. If I refused to change, then frankly, most of the backlash would be my own fault. I think the same is applicable to this whole empathy case.
For most people, empathy means being able to share someone’s feelings, usually when you have already experienced the same thing yourself. For example, as a MK, I love being with other MK’s because they can empathize with my experience. They really understand me when I talk about security issues, or visa problems, etc, etc. It can also be a vicarious experience. It can also refer to the very lucky fact that humans are able to mirror each other and intuitively know what another person is feeling or thinking, and that they are also able to identify with fictional characters. It is the main reason that we love stories.
So for many of us, this is a very treasured word. If you feel very strongly about criticizing “modern empathy,” or “a disregard of reason/truth,” or “drowning in subjectivity,” by all means, go ahead. I applaud you. But please attach this definition to its own term, and don’t load “empathy” with a whole lot of baggage it doesn’t deserve. It’s a very useful addition to the dictionary, and I think a lot of Christians would like to use it in peace.
Like “Calvinism.”
Myah
Myah, thanks for the feedback. You are right on the substance of our position. I have no quarrel at all with empathy as a synonym or near synonym for sympathy. My only beef is with relativism, what you call modern empathy. I would only protest (mildly) that empathy is a word of fairly recent coinage, and I believe that mischief was in it from the beginning.
Dabney
I just finished reading “On Secular Education” by R.L. Dabney. Wow. Thank you for bringing this excellent little book to my attention. Have you read “A Defense of Virginia and the South,” also by R.L. Dabney?
Jill
Jill, yes, I have read that book. It is informative in many ways.
Sphere Sovereignty
I just watched your youtube post “How to Build Christian Communities” and you said that:
The Church is the ministry of Grace and Peace
The Civil Government is the ministry of Justice
The Family is the ministry of Health, Education, Welfare
I am new to sphere sovereignty.
Can you please point me in the direction of some resources on this? Do you have any books outlining this in great detail?
Thank you,
Michelle
Michelle, I think I would recommend that you begin with Gary DeMar’s book God and Government.
Danger, Danger
Not sure if I should be pleased or worried, and I’d be grateful for your opinion. We’ve been trying to convince our daughter (high school senior) to choose Cornerstone University, over the usual, secular, choices in universities. We want her to have a Christ-centered, not woke-centered, education.
But now we read this:
On the one hand, every paragraph made me cheer the new president.
But on the other hand, a 42 to 6 vote, with 14 abstaining, of no confidence in him (and his plainly wise choices) from the faculty? It’s the faculty that would be teaching her.
Befuddledly yours,
Greg
Greg, you have made the point yourself. It is the faculty that would be doing the teaching. So unless the president is about to clean house, I would be very concerned about sending a daughter there.
Neglected Qualification
I just recently finished your book “The Neglected Qualification”, and I’d like to ask a practical question about applying these principles. I’m part of a faithful Reformed Baptist church, but one of several things that concerns me a little bit about it is that one of the two elders, a godly man who I respect, has three adult children who have sadly all denied the faith. Several months ago his son was excommunicated over many tears.
I really respect him, he is a godly Christian man, has a healthy marriage and performs his responsibilities faithfully in the church. However, for any number of reasons, that is the situation with his kids. It isn’t a taboo subject, he leads our Bible study and we pray for his kids all the time. My question is, how do you think I should respond as a church member?
I certainly don’t want to divide the church over this issue. I am very careful when I bring it up, but I have mentioned to a few people that I think this is grounds for stepping down, as Toby Sumpter also mentioned on Twitter recently. No-one has been harsh to me for saying so, they simply have a different view of Paul’s words in 1 Timothy and Titus. He is not the “lead pastor”, doesn’t take a salary and runs his own business, so it isn’t an issue of “What will I do if I step down”, it’s just that they disagree that this is the direct application of those passages.
Is this just something I should overlook as a mere disagreement on secondary things? There are several other things, like acceptance of Christian kids in public school, that bother me, but because they are otherwise a very faithful bunch of believers, I am not sure how seriously I should respond to these concerns.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this letter, and I’m loving NQN so far.
CD
CD, I am obviously making a judgment call from a great distance, so take that into account. I don’t think this is the kind of situation that a church member has to make a fuss about. I would just stick to your views, and pray for them accordingly. In The Neglected Qualification, I make the distinction between the standard I would apply to myself, and the standard I would fight about at presbytery. This is that kind of situation.
Doug, First off, thanks for taking my call. You have been getting more disgruntled letters lately, and I always appreciate your willingness to take criticism head on. Also, thanks for acknowledging that the section in yesterday’s post on obeying the magistrate was an exercise in erecting strawmen for effigy burning. I’m sure there is someone out there whi believes that government authority is absolute and husbandry authority doesn’t exist, but they certainly aren’t the people who are strongly influenced by *you.* I want to ask for qualification on a couple of points: 1. “I do believe that our attitude toward… Read more »
I appreciate your pushback on Rom 13, and the seeming inconsistency of justifying ways of qualifying this whilst being reluctant to do that with Eph 5. We all agree we must obey God rather than man when man requires us to keep quiet about the faith. Applying this as a get out clause when the government is enforcing medical advice to try to control a pandemic is more than questionable. I have American friends in Germany who have finally fallen out over this. In a country where the virus is rapidly running out of control, intensive care is on the… Read more »
Ken, I am certainly more of a covid dove than you are. I think much of the interventions that various governments have put into place have been overweening and imprudent. They have often not brought their people along with them, but have rather acted imperiously and have displayed a brittleness and fickleness that is unbecoming their positions as magistrates. I am certainly not opposed to people having strong opinions about governance and seeking all lawful remedy (including protection by a lesser magistrate at times, and disobedience and martyrdom in extremis) if they are feeling oppressed. But I am completely opposed… Read more »
demos – thanks for the reply. Our old Friday night bible study leader used to say ‘respect the office even if you don’t respect the current incumbent’. Is it also a coincidence that Thessalonica, which was the first place Christianity took root in a democracy (with much female emancipation to boot!) also required the admonition from Paul ‘to respect those who labour among you and are over you in the Lord’. Disrespect for leaders is often a problem with those living in a democracy as much political debate and blogdom will amply demonstrate. It can also get into the church,… Read more »
Ken, I may have sounded a little combative in my response, but it was unintentional. I just wanted to make my view/position clear. I have been very frustrated by how quickly people assume bad motives, lying and manipulation; and how those who made terrible predictions/judgements have generally doubled down when the facts on the ground showed they were wrong. Doug ridiculed Fauci after he estimated that up to 230,000 people may die of covid. Here we at well over three times that number, but I have yet to see an apology! But I think we should keep things in context… Read more »
demos – I didn’t take you as being combative.
I have heard two sets of American evangelicals in the last three days compare the anti-corona measures being enacted in Austria and Germany at present with the Hitler period. Now that definitely needs to be combatted! What planet are they living on.
Ken, if the current Austrian measures aren’t similar to the National Socialist Workers Party taking power, what are they?
Is it just the start of a totalitarian government in Austria instead of the stated Parliamentary Democracy?
Austria and Germany are both democracies, and elected governments are making these decisions in accordance with their constitutions and emergency legislation. The rate of voluntary vaccination in both countries is too low to stop the rapid spread of corona amongst the non-vaccinated, and increasingly the elderly vaccinated. This is due to the more lethal nature of the delta variant. I’m not sure Austria has much choice than to make vaccination compulsory, their healthcare system is at its limit, and the infection rate is out of control. They have got to the place of last resort. Germany has resisted compulsory vaccination… Read more »
To be clear, I think “not much choice” is rarely entirely true. They could simply choose to accept a certain level of excess deaths due to the impossibility of sufficient medical care. But the accerating burnout among already overworked nurses could make that quite a tough bargain.
If you mean the anti-vaxxers have brought sickness and death on themselves then maybe in a sense you could accept a level of excess deaths. Two problems with this. First, the overwhelming of the healthcare system will drag others down with it, the effects cannot be limited to just the unvaccinated. In the UK, which already had waiting lists, there have been 5 million postponed operations, and numerous deaths where life-saving treatment was simply discontinued due to covid. I know people who have lost relatives this way. Second, some of those refusing are genuinely afraid and/or have bought into duff… Read more »
Austria has numerous choices that do not include house arrest for those who do not take the jab and those who are jabbed but are tired of the government interfering in their daily lives. Those in power are probably interested in control and in gathering as much international cash to their accounts as they can. It’s the same in the US, especially at the state and local levels. My city doesn’t want to tell residents how much cash has been gathered to the till. The city was supposed to be given CARES cash to make up for lost taxes since… Read more »
This is just as ridiculous as your earlier claim that the forests would be piled with deer carcasses if Covid was really dangerous.
First off, many homeless folk do get vaccinated.
Second, if a homeless person wasn’t vaccinated, got Covid, didn’t go to the hospital, and then died on the street, their body wouldn’t be left to pile up on a sidewalk.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-18/los-angeles-homeless-people-peer-ambassadors-covid-vaccines
…but are tired of the government interfering in their daily lives. There you have it in a nutshell. The American obsession with personal autonomy. Clueless James White the same. The two Americans on Anglican Unscripted who think the unvaccinated are being treated as the Nazis treated the Jews. The virus is the problem, not the government. The freedoms which are being restricted wouldn’t have been but for so many refusing vaccination. The infection rate is highest where the vaccination rate is lowest. This was largely avoidable. My daughter was looking at a service online today of a church we had… Read more »
Ken, first, the government is the problem. Secondly, the American obsession with personal liberty is codified in the Constitution of the American Constitutional Republic. This republic is completely different from other forms of government in the world and our officials are currently doing everything they can to destroy it. The SARS CoV-2 is a virus that has the ability to kill. But it usually only gets those who have huge underlying health problems rather than healthy folks with good immune systems. In this manner it is similar to the 2003 SARS. Governments telling individuals they may not use drugs of… Read more »
Do you have any evidence for that claim Dave? I’ve seen multiple cases where the hospitals released partially-vaccinated #’s in addition to unvaccinated and fully vaccinated #’s and the partially vaccinated were insignificant to the total. Partially unvaccinated were no more than 5-6% of the US population during the summer surge, so claiming they were the source of most hospitalizations defies logic.
Recent Washington #’s published November 17:
The full report graphs partially-vaccinated #’s as well and they’re insignificant:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/1600/coronavirus/data-tables/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf
Dave – lest there be any misunderstanding, I am with you on personal liberty/responsibility and against unnecessary government interference as enshrined in law in the US and UK (similar ethos) or the modern German constitution for normal times. The point is we are not living in normal times but a worldwide pandemic. It is therefore reasonable, indeed essential to curtail normal liberties in the interests of society as a whole, temporarily as long as the pandemic justifying them lasts. If I were to list the govt restrictions in place when Churchill was Prime Minister after 1940 you would think him… Read more »
One running excuse here (to cover that Pastor Wilson previously supported vaccine requirements and quarantines for the non-vaccinated) is to claim that the pandemic isn’t serious enough an issue.
It’s worth remembering that when Dr. Fauci predicted that over 200,000 Americans could die, Pastor Wilson considered that statement so extreme that it should cause him to lose all credibility. Now that figures have 770,000 dead (and excess death counts suggest a true toll over a million), he either shifts to the hypocritical claim that mandates are always tyranny, or vaguely insists the death count is a lie.
The experts in the UK messed up at the beginning by forecasting up to half a million deaths. This was later scaled right back, and the anti-measures brigade, whining about the loss of liberty, claimed at most 20 000 would die. The current figure is 144 000 deaths (a figure easy to remember).
The “half a million” was the worst case 18-month scenario out of multiple projections, assumed no vaccine would be developed and included the condition that no large-scale measures would be taken to reduce deaths (lockdowns, school closures, masking, etc).
And as Fauci said at the time, you never actually hit the worst-case scenario.
That being said, if the UK had engaged in no lockdowns, no masks, no vaccines before Delta hit, it seems rather likely that 300k+ would have been in the picture.
Ken, there is nothing in scripture indicating or commanding that individuals must take the jab or any medical procedure. Churchill was a tyrant and measures he took were extreme; but, the war could have been won without the harsh measures. Folks bought into it because the Germans were bombing England and Churchill was a good public speaker. FDR didn’t help either. The not taking care of your neighbor idea is a false scriptural argument. America has wondered far away from scripture and Christians no longer know how to analyze and think according to scripture. Society as a whole does not… Read more »
We have perused that data Dave, I posted it directly for you in the comment above. You have ignored it, again, because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Dave, it’s truly amazing how you can rewrite history and dream up your own set of facts, while mangling Bible verses on the fly. I bet you’re a hoot at parties.
Gentle Readers, Will the Gossiper is back.
Churchill was not a tyrant and I doubt if the war could have been won without strict measures. Food rationing safeguarded enough for all, without it the rich would have bought up supplies (“the free market”) and essential industrial workers have gone without. In any event the country was nearly starved into submission in 1942 due to U boot activity. ID cards made it harder for spies. The nightly curfew and rules against showing lights were essential to prevent the accurate bombing of towns. This was rigorously enforced; as it was a quarter of the country’s housing stock was destroyed… Read more »
CD,
The situation with your elder can be a sensitive one and a cause for lament, and I think elders should be given space to try to sort out their family matters, the last thing they need is the whole congregation putting their family in a fishbowl. But if an elders kids are rejecting the faith he needs to step down. 1 Tim 3:4 and Titus 1:6 are both quite clear.
I saw that League of the South president Michael Hill is in court defending himself and the other White Nationalist organizations that set up the “Unite the Right” rally. Since you’ve headlined events together with Michael Hill before and have voiced support for the League and claimed they’re not racist on multiple occasions, I’m wondering if this can be the moment where you finally rebuke them?
https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2021/11/witnesses-testify-in-trial-of-unite-the-right-organizers-speak-on-lasting-trauma
From the article:
In case there is any doubt that the League of South has clearly tolerated racism from the very top of the leadership and always has, and clearly are not “good diagnosticians” or persons who should be spoken in support of, I offer the following receipts. 1994: The League of the South is founded by Michael Hill, Steve Wilkins, Jack Kershaw, and others. Its founding documents advocate for secession, argue for “strictly limiting immigration, and put up Southern Society as superior to American society as it is structured on “a recognition of the natural societal order of superiors and subordinates.” The stated purpose of the LOS… Read more »
Jonathan, exactly which ox or oxen of yours did Wilson gore?
You refuse to answer my questions and deflect when I point out errors in your posts. Which ox or oxen of yours did Wilson gore causing you to post kabillions of data here?
Why try so desperate to deflect? Why not, at least this once, hold Pastor Wilson accountable to something, anything?
Pastor Wilson claimed the League of the South wasn’t racist and gave them his support. They are now undeniably racist in the worst ways, by their own admission, and much of the leadership always has been and publicly so.
Why does Pastor Wilson refuse to acknowledge that when he was so vocal in his claims before?
Jonathan, my question had nothing to do with your question to Wilson. It had to do with your refusal to give straight answers when you are cornered. This isn’t deflection. You Jonathan, refuse to answer the question.
Exactly which ox or oxen did Wilson gore to get you so upset?
I own no oxen, Dave. There, I answered your question.
You should really get some oxen. They are severly underrated.
I’m a fan of working oxen. Unfortunately I have neither the land nor the stability of place to do justice to them.
Or sheep. Five sheep can make one sweater. I didn’t even know they know how to knit.
Jill, sheep are baaaad knitters.
Jonathan, you have many oxen and they all low quietly in your ears while the blood of your imagined hurts flows down their flanks. You should stop convincing yourself and others that you don’t hate Wilson.
Is your answer above that of a Godly Christian man or that of a fool?
Jonathan, you treat everyone who disagrees you with great contempt and overwhelmingly arrogant answers. Why should Wilson answer any of your demanding, ignorant questions?
Some of my questions may be demanding, but they certainly aren’t ignorant and I provided more than enough information to make that clear.
Pastor Wilson should answer the question because he publicly associated with and defended the leaders of an openly racist organization. They are (and were) doing exactly what he claimed they were not. His standing defenses of them and claims that they are not racist throw his other statements about racism into doubt.
Jonathan, you publicly associate with actions which are neither scriptural nor constitutional. You have done this for years and offer no apologies for your error nor do you interact evenly with other posters. You are a stout racist yourself and have maintained that stance regardless of any other input. Racism is only skin color to you just like the pagan social justice warriors today and you throw that racist card frequently. You demand others bow to your inaccurate definitions of social justice rather than that demanded by our Bible. Have you forgotten all of the invective you spewed upon others… Read more »
Yeah Dave, that would certainly be a good bit of false witness right there from beginning to end.
And I think something you need to look at (not just in terms of myself but also in your attacks on other posters) is that you have largely been engaged in generalized insults in recent weeks. Not addressing specific concerns, not commenting on actions or statements, but rather making wide-ranging insults and attacks on character. I don’t believe such comments are useful to anyone or helpful to the body.
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. Titus 2:6 Jonathan, my comments are general in nature because you do not stick to the point and pound others with massive responses which do not prove anything except that you can cut and paste. Yes, in your case a general comment pointing out your impolite, arrogant demands to Wilson is helpful to you and to those reading this blog. Jonathan, you have a track record of calling Wilson and other posters liars and bearing false witness. Frequently, you accuse others of exactly what you are doing. You are willing to take… Read more »
Dave, you don’t have any issue calling others racist. You called me racist yesterday. You throw out the “racist” accusation more than I have in the last year.
I don’t use “racist” as a general insult when I don’t like someone. I use it on the rare occasions when someone does something racist. And the League of the South is racist by their own overt declaration. Do you dispute that or not?
And since I don’t make a claim without providing evidence, these are all quotes from Dave in 2021: Jonathan, you publicly associate with actions which are neither scriptural nor constitutional. You have done this for years and offer no apologies for your error nor do you interact evenly with other posters.You are a stout racist yourself and have maintained that stance regardless of any other input. Racism is only skin color to you just like the pagan social justice warriors today and you throw that racist card frequently. …The minimum wage is racist.Welfare is racist.Affirmative action is racist.Free health care is… Read more »
Reading those statements caused me to notice something I had missed before.
Dave, one of our main arguments about racism was in response to Pastor Wilson’s statement that he had no problem with state-based racism.
When I said that bothered me you responded by attacking free health care and such as racist, but why didn’t you respond to Pastor Wilson explicit allowance of state-based racism? If you think racism by the state is wrong, then why not disagree with Pastor Wilson when he says it’s okay?
Jonathan, you missed the whole point. You are so arrogant you cannot see the main point. That used to be called missing the forest for the trees. I don’t know where you went to school, or how many degrees you have, but they didn’t teach you how to see the big picture and how to address problems. My comments you listed were made to you in reply to your incorrect positions. I was pointing out racism in areas of our government and lives that you promote not making racist remarks. That is not racist even though you try to make… Read more »
I have never said you were racist Dave. I was listing some of the many times that you have accused others of racism.
Since you do it so often, you can’t claim that the simple act of calling something racist is wrong. You have to show that I’ve actually made an incorrect judgment. That was the point.
The League of the South is racist. They are openly, vehemently racist, by their own admission. You agree with that, right?
Jonathan, again you can’t stick to the point.
Do you understand that your are ignorantly, impolitely, arrogantly demanding responses from Wilson when not a single person here has the authority to do so? Yes or no.
Dave, if you claim that I tried to make you look racist, I’m going to respond to that point. You can’t throw out a falsehood and then get upset when I correct it.
And I disagree that I said anything ignorantly or arrogantly. I disagree even stronger that “no one here has the authority to do so”, that’s feudalism, not from Christ. I will admit to being a tad impolite, but come on, it’s No Quarter November for goodness sake! And if you or Pastor Wilson honestly believe politeness is all that important, it doesn’t show.
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.” Titus 2:6 Jonathan, I don’t answer for Wilson at all. In this exchange, you are the drunk guy at a party, knocking over the furniture, spilling drinks on the guests and acting in a boisterous, rude, arrogant manner. I’m just a friend who is encouraging you to stop drinking the booze, go to the kitchen and sober up with a few pots of extremely strong Kronig’s Gold coffee. We are guests here and even in No Quarter November, being a guest has limits. No one has the authority to demand and is… Read more »
None of your claims make any sense in context. I have said nothing nearly as rude as what you say right there.
And once again I’ll point out – it is expressly allowed in Scripture for a guest to challenge a host on theological issues.
And Scripture gives me no less authority to ask Pastor Wilson these questions than you have to say such things to me. Your weekly demands and angry statements to me have been far more belligerent than anything I have asked of Wilson.
Jonathan, go to worship tomorrow. Take the mask off of your face and your heart.
Sing to God with a cheerful voice and rejoice in Christ our Lord and King.
Now once again I’m asking you, not Pastor Wilson. Do you acknowledge that the League of the South is racist? They are openly, vehemently racist, by their own admission. They declare their racism from their chest and publicly join forces with other racists to pursue racist objectives. Do you acknowledge that or not? Or are you going to deflect yet again?
You have felt quite comfortable making demands of me week in and week out. So why not answer the question?
Now, to get back to the actual point, the League of the South is racist. They are openly, vehemently racist, by their own admission. They declare their racism from their chest and publicly join forces with other racists to pursue racist objectives. Do you acknowledge that or not? Or are you going to deflect again because you feel admitting the answer gives away too much?
Jonathan, read this entirely before running to your standard deflection comment. This is called a conversation and it’s like dancing where it takes two to tango.
What is the scripture for demanding an answer from a host?
I have not commented on the League of the South. That is your demand to Wilson and not to me. I will say that I haven’t seen any news that they were involved in burning down businesses or destroying miles of city blocks or looting stores.
Is Black Lives Matter a racist organization?
Dave, I already answered your initial question and you still haven’t answered mine. I asked YOU, directly, twice, whether you thought the League of the South was racist. On numerous occasions I’ve answered your direct questions, perhaps you’ll answer mine for once.
I have not seen a single Scripture that states that a Christian guest cannot pose a question to a host. But Jesus set the example in Luke 7:40-47. And Matthew 20:25-28 is what I am referring to when I point out your rules have more in common with feudalism than Christianity.
“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.” Titus 2:6 Jonathan, in the scripture you referenced, Jesus did not demand answers to nonsensical questions. He asked questions and spoke to clarify His teaching and authority. In Luke 7, Jesus wasn’t asking just a question of the host, but answering an unspoken one as the sinning woman washed His feet with her tears. “Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she… Read more »
You claimed that me asking a question of Pastor Wilson was forbidden by Scripture. You still haven’t stated how in the least, nor did you convincingly explain why either of those statements doesn’t fit the situation (I’m not sure you understood why I cited the 2nd one at all).
And you apparently didn’t read my comment on the League of the South at all, but they have officially joined the “Nationalist Front”, which includes the White Nationalist Front (Canada), Pacific Coast Knights of the KKK, Swedish Sveriges Nationella Förbund, National Socialist Movement, Texas Rebel Knights, Racial Nationalist Party of America, SS Action Group, Scottish National Socialist Party, the Traditionalist Workers Party (TWP), White Lives Matter, Blood & Honour Social Club, American Vanguard, and Aryan Strikeforce.
Their central unifying feature is the desire for a White ethnostate and the express desire to overthrow the government in their region.
Jonathan, I nearly posted in frustration yesterday, feeling that you have some particular axe to grind with Pastor Wilson. I even searched out the etymology of that phrase to ensure I could use it correctly. I deferred, as I generally don’t have much to add to these discussions. However, today in the case of your last post to Dave, I equate my reaction to your posts on this thread to the feelings of having my commanding officer called out by a subordinate in front of the crew, or even my mother’s cooking being complained about during dinner by a friend… Read more »
Thank you much for that kindly worded perspective, J.F.
However, I would disagree. Our Lord Jesus Christ makes quite clear that being a “guest” does not preclude one from calling out the host when necessary, and sometimes in a very direct, explicit manner.
In terms of Matthew 18:15, I did write to Pastor Wilson privately first some days ago, but he ignored it.
For a more balanced view of Dabney read his testimony at presbytery against the ordination of negros
Dabney had his moments, but you really have to take his terrible views on black people seriously. There were many theologians in his day who were orthodox and not as racist as he. He complains bitterly late in life that the lack of slavery has made his life drudgery and he no longer has time to study. Having to pay servants wages or do your own housekeeping is such a drag.
And it blows me away that people do not see his terrible views on Black people as fundamentally connected to his defenses of the antebellum South. Those two things can’t be separated and Dabney and his fellow Confederates had no desire to separate them.
That dovetails in nicely with what I just pointed out regarding the 27-year history of the League of the South – their “defense of the South” has always been tied in with their defense of racism, but Pastor Wilson consistently praises them for one and then ignores the other.
Jonathan,
You, and others, may be interested in Steven Wedgeworth’s “Unreconstructed No More.” It touches on the League of the South and it kicked off a minor spat with Wilkins. Stephen touches on The League of the South and some of the weirdness surrounding it.
Well, I just tracked down and read Dabney’s “Against the Ecclesiastical Equality of Negro Preachers in our Church and their Right to Rule over White Christians,” and his own words haven’t contributed to my having a balanced view. Most of his arguments strike me as worldly rather than spiritual, and all are far removed from the spirit of the gospels and the epistles. ‘This day we are threatened with evils, through negro supremacy and spoliation, to whose atrocity the horrors of the late war were tender mercies. And these ebony pets of this romantic philanthropy, this day lend themselves in… Read more »
I think you relive this, but JSM was wanting the balance the apparent Dabney love in the letters (from a clearly lesser Jill, and Doug’s response). Balance here means realizing that Dabney was deeply racist in the most vainglorious way.
Funny to me that people who chide Darwin for his racism often embrace Dabney… no one has principles and all that!
And yet Darwin was firmly in support of abolition, writing about slavery: “It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. … It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen; if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of… Read more »
Does Darwin’s support of abolition mitigate his appalling racism?
Stephen Jay Gould — who subscribes to Darwin’s theory — wrote: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)
I’m not sure what you mean by “mitigate”, but while nearly every White person was racist in the 1800s, not every White person advocated for horrific things to be done to Black people.
There is a giant gulf between someone who believes a false intellectual proposition and someone who advocates for an evil practice to continue.
Jonathan, glad to see your welfare check cleared. Must be nice having all the time in the world to post long screeds over trivial things and to butt into everyone’s conversation threads.
When you’re able to take some time off from berating Doug, go look up the word “mitigate” in the dictionary, since your vocabulary is clearly lacking. You’ll then find out what I meant.
Gentle Readers, please note Jonathan’s broad statement that nearly every white person was racist in the 1800s.
What about the black racists from that period?
What about the American Indians who were extremely racist?
What about the Asians? I’m sure many of them were racist too.
Of course, they are completely irrelevant, as Darwin was White, not Asian or Black or American Indian, so their racism is irrelevant.
The question was whether Darwin’s racial views are a meaningful characteristic, was it not? You seem to be inadvertently supporting our side, that at that time they were not.
Gentle Readers, Jonathan and other like minded social justice warriors, including unthinking Christians, identify racism with skin color. True racism extends beyond skin color and includes a multitude of other distinctions that have nothing to do with skin color.
Dave, how do you feel about the League of the South? Do you feel they’re racist, or not?
The implications of Darwin’s theory certainly prompted some people to embrace “Social Darwinism.” That tells us nothing about whether Darwin’s theory was correct. He is not responsible for the uses to which evil people put his ideas. I don’t think anyone could make a case that the millions upon millions of people today who think his theory is fundamentally correct are more “racist” than those who don’t. What other evidence have you that Darwin was personally racist?
Jilly, I’m afraid you missed the point. To paraphrase Demo:
Funny to me that people who chide Dabney for his racism often embrace Darwin… no one has principles and all that!
Do you see what’s going on now?
Right. I think Darwin gets (wrongly) criticized for all of scientific racism, which is wrong for a couple of reasons. 1. Sometimes true ideas/theories have unsettling implications. That is no reason to halt their pursuit. The same thing is still happening with human genetics and even archeology where findings go against progressive bromides. 2. Scientific racism is really just a continuation of prescientific racism with a new gloss put on it. Dabney is instructive here – he was venomous anti-evolution and he made comments about the inferiority of black people that would have made any polygenist blush. Funny that CRI… Read more »
Darwin deserves every bit of blame he gets over racism. His work was extremely and fundamentally racist, and provided at last a legitimate way for people to argue for racism. If he had embraced truth instead of fantasy for the basis of his studies, there would be no “unsettling implications” For some reason, evolutionists always forget the full title: On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life, along with his other super-racist book The Descent of Man. Obviously, you don’t have to be an evolutionist to be… Read more »
The subtitle referring to the “preservation of favored races in the struggle for life” is often misinterpreted by those who have not personally read “On the Origin of Species.” It does not refer to human races; the work doesn’t address human evolution at all. Darwin didn’t deal with human evolution until The Descent of Man in 1871. Darwin, like most Victorians of his day, took for granted that the civilized upper class white man was highest form of humanity. His comments on other races are undeniably racist in that they suggest some groups of people (he rejected racial essentialism, the… Read more »
I’m combining this reply to Jonathan and Jill: I never meant that no one considered racism legitimate, I meant that Darwinism provided a basis grounded in (supposed) science for racism. Racism no longer has to be ideologically correct only, it’s factually/scientifically correct. As to Darwin personally? If he wasn’t so racist, that would only prove that he was completely inconsistent in his beliefs. From an evolutionary standpoint, racism is actually good. Some races are objectively worse suited to survival in this world and thus should be weeded out for the preservation and progression of the species. I don’t know if… Read more »
Scientific justifications of racism were common long before Darwin and mostly exist completely outside of evolution theory. Read “The Mismeasure of Man” for a history of the subject. Samuel George Morton, Louis Agassiz, Paul Broca, they were all making scientific claims in that direction long before Darwin came on the scene. Nothing about evolutionary theory made racism “more correct”. Racist people who happened to believe in science already were using science to underlay their racist theories, now they simply did the same with the new science. You claim that racism is scientifically “good” is 100% false and patently ridiculous. The opposite… Read more »
First of all, I entirely agree with your point about race not being a legitimate scientific category. *handshake* but the point is, from an evolutionary stance, it is a real category. Our faith teaches us not to be racist, but our faith also teaches us Darwin’s theory is a smoking pile of trash. That’s why our position is consistent. Darwinism is inherently racist, and I hold to my claim that there is no good reason not to be racist if you are an evolutionist (at least in regards to the origin of man). And the fact that I’ve never heard… Read more »
First, “from an evolutionary standpoint”, race is not a real category. Every group of people we call a “race” are made up of numerous genetic lineages that often have closer relations across another race than within their own, and on top of that are crossed and mixed in numerous ways going back thousands of years. Many Europeans people share more DNA similarities with some Africans than those Africans share with other Africans.
This is a good basic article on that:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01837-7
Jonathan, I don’t want to get off on too bug of a tangent about human diversity. But do you agree that the genetic and phenotypic differences between an Andaman Negrito and a Cheyenne are large enough that they would be considered races or subspecies if the same were observed in, say, brown bears? Obviously putting people into 3 or 4 strict “races” based on a few physical traits is not very scientific… but there really is incredible diversity in people. The median height of an Mbuti is something like 4’4″ and most adults weigh well under 100 lbs. This is,… Read more »
Compare how “different” people are from each other to how different domestic dogs are from each other. In terms of shape, features, color, physical and intellectual ability, there is FAR more diversity in dogs than there is in humans. Yet all domestic dogs are considered to be the same subspecies, Canis lupus familiaris. And all that variation emerged in just a few hundred years of selective breeding, suggesting the basic genetic diversity was already present in wolves though natural selection kept it from expressing itself very long (any wolf expressing traits in the direction of a dachshund or english bulldog… Read more »
Jonathan, This is pretty confused because you are pulling in several things that are dissimilar. But, first of all, I agree with you that species is a poorly defined concept, subspecies even more poorly defined. There are several rubrics we use, but they all break down at the edges or give answers that seem counter intuitive so there is a lot of judgement. And contra your claim that this isn’t considered important, it is considered very important, as subspecies are more likely to be granted protection, if anything the biological/taxonomic communities are leaning toward a less rigorous version if subspecies… Read more »
And diversity alone doesn’t justify racial categories, because the diversity doesn’t align with the actual racial categories. A Mbuti and a Kafa differ more from each other genetically than that Kafa differs from the average Saudi, yet everyone would call a Mbuti and a Kafa black while no one calls Saudis black. Many north africans and southern europeans share more genetic lineage with each other than they do with russians or south africans. Native Americans are extremely closely related to certain east Asians genetically, in fact moreso than some asians are with each other which means that many Latinos are heavily… Read more »
Here’s a chart of the family tree of their lineages. But remember, these lineage names don’t represent actual populations. For example, someone in Iran would be a mix of south asian, north asian, west asian, and arabian ancestries, with different people from different communities having different mixes. People from Libya are a mix of arabian, north african, southern european, west asian, and eastern african ancestries. Our ancestors simply migrated too often to develop distinct isolated populations in the manner than some animals do.
Again, I’m not arguing in favor of a simple black, white, Asian, amerindian scheme. Not at all. But the way you present the genetics graphically can majorly skew how people read it. All non-subsaharan Africans are basically one branch of the tree from Africa. There genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa is immense, and yes, I used to irritate our good friend Armin by informing him that he was more closely related to a bantu, than the bantu is to a San bushman. People actually do break up genetically by geography pretty well. Take a look at the principal component analysis… Read more »
To be clear, the paper I posted (Baker et al. 2017) is a substantial update of Xing et al. 2010. The genetic sample size was increased from Xing’s 850 people of 40 communities to Baker’s 5,966 people from 282 different communities. That allowed them to do more with the results than Xing did – for example, determine ancestral sub-groups to a much finer level, so that they were not only organizing by current social division but also tracing ancestral community influences that don’t fit the modern community lines. I agree that how you present the graphics does affect it tremendously.… Read more »
I should note that I agree with you that stating people are generally more closely related to people geographically closer to them than they are to people geographically further from them is, at least as a generalization, obviously true. The issues with moving from there to “races” are numerous. First, as you note, the genetic differences vary tremendously such that if we were arguing based on genetic distance, we’d be much more justified in breaking Africa up into several different groups than we are separating Native Americans from Russians. Second, none of the most natural genetic divisions come at continental… Read more »
I agree with you, for the most part. I would probably quibble about the rate of migration/selection sweeps. They are actually quite rare, and they are often Y-chromosone only, like the sweep of the Yamnaya into Europe which replaced much of the male population (to out it nicely). But most of the time, until the 20th century, movement was slow and diffusion was gradual. My point is simply that if we were a heavily studied species like the brown bear there would be numerous subspecies. Some would be on the verge of exhaustion, there would be much mixing along the… Read more »
Perhaps pre-20th century movement was slow in technological terms, but in biological terms it was extremely rapid. I mean just look at all the new regions settled by enormous #’s of Europeans and Africans in the 16th-19th centuries. Going back further, take Great Britain as a case history. It’s a marginal island with meh weather on the corner of the continent and an ocean on one side. Not an easy place to get to or an obvious target for migration. Yet they have the ancient population that came from the U5 haplogroup (Baltic region), which then was substantially mixed some… Read more »
In terms of human subspecies, there actually were human subspecies designated from the beginning, but they were typically aligned unscientifically along continental boundaries and didn’t have any objective basis. Thus the names and number of human subspecies varied continuously, and they were mostly ignored due to their lack of consensus and underpinnings. For at least 50 years its been widely agreed that there isn’t a scientific justification for subspecies. A full scientific argument can be found here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/ That’s a rare scientific argument for it mostly because subspecies is not an objectively defined scientific category. There’s no clear universal definition… Read more »
Second, insisting that evolution means racism just doesn’t make sense. Evolution does not insist on moral categories nor on any need to rank existing groups against each other. White need not be superior to Black any more than blue-eyed are superior to brown-eyed. If you want to overlay that claim on top of evolution that’s your own choice, it’s not inherent in the theory.
And I don’t understand what relevance your not having heard of race science before Darwin has to its existence. Is Paul a bigger racist than Dabney because many have heard of Paul but not Dabney?
To show why your point doesn’t make sense:
Jonathan TCO, This paragraph shows a glaring ignorance of natural selection: “As to Darwin personally? If he wasn’t so racist, that would only prove that he was completely inconsistent in his beliefs. From an evolutionary standpoint, racism is actually good. Some races are objectively worse suited to survival in this world and thus should be weeded out for the preservation and progression of the species.” Where did you learn about evolution? You probably should try to have at least an elementary understanding of a concept before you discuss it. Even if we assume that race is a reasonable and valid… Read more »
Jonathan, evolutionary theory doesn’t make the claim that some races are objectively less suited for “survival in this world.” Natural selection–which we can loosely define as the process by which living things that are better adapted to their environment tend to live longer and therefore reproduce–operates within a given environment. The Kalahari Bushmen are better suited to their harsh environment than a Hollywood film crew dropped off without weapons, phones, and water bottles. Sumatran tigers are apex predators, but only in their habitat. An arctic hare has a better chance of survival than a tiger dropped into the tundra. So… Read more »
Oh, it absolutely does make that claim. Evolution would make it right for white Europeans to wipe out anyone else on the globe simply because they can. The ability to be victorious is the justification for it. If you all really don’t think evolution is racist, it may be because you believe in this vile and ungodly ideology of evolution, and (I’m not saying, again, that you are racist for holding it) but you really can’t deny where evolutionary ideology ends up. It is absolutely not misreading survival of the fittest, this is exactly what survival of the fittest means!… Read more »
Those claims are nonsensical Jonathan, especially since White Europeans already DID work to wipe out a good portion of the globe long before evolutionary theory ever existed, but largely stopped soon afterwards. I don’t know of any examples of anyone following through with what you insist evolution demands.
You still haven’t answered any of my earlier points. Where are the scientific papers making the claims you say they would? And why did the evolutionist-influenced regions of the USA largely drop state racism before the anti-evolutionist regions did?
You don’t understand. I don’t need to show you scientific papers. That would be stupid. It’s an ideology. I’m not pretending to explain why “evolution influenced regions” (which is a silly term, it was everywhere) behaved in the way they did. My point is, evolution is a racist ideology. People can be inconsistent in their views. Clearly you believe evolution, but that doesn’t necessitate you being a racist.
The point is, Darwinism is bad. Really really bad. And needs to go.
If you make contentious claims, you should produce some sort of evidence. Three people have pointed out that your claims are wrong in both science and history, and all three have cited their reasoning and evidence.
The claim “evolution is a racist ideology” just because Darwin was isn’t any more valid than claiming America is racist just because most of its founders were. Beyond that, you’ve offered no evidence for your claims.
Jonathan (TCO), What do you mean by evolution? I see that you capitalized it. Do you have some particular formulation in mind, or do you mean the gradual change I’m allele frequencies over time due to selection pressures with kead to morphological and behavioral changes? Because pretty much everyone believes in that. The YEC folks like Answers in Genesis just believe it happens really really fast. Today they generally believe that “baramins” or kinds were on the ark and these rapidly diversified into today’s species. All felids likely had one “kind” on the ark and they rapidly (very very rapidly)… Read more »
demosthenesld forgetting about logic again!
You completely misunderstand baraminology, which is nothing like Darwinistic Evolution.
And specifically man, who evolutionists believe came from an ape-like creature which came from protoplasms.
Do you believe that? Do you think that since for some reason those preachers embraced unbiblical doctrine its okay for us to?
This is what we call the “ad populum” fallacy when we can’t make our point in a logical manner.
Jonathan TCO, What error of logic do you think I have committed. I don’t misunderstand baraminology at all. I have studied quite extensively. But if you think I something wrong you could try correcting me rather than just informing me that I have failed! Baraminology is an attempt to reconcile YEC with the findings of science in geology, paleontology, physiology, and genetics (to some degree). When I was a kid I was largely taught that something like a giraffe was so unique and irreducible complex (though that term wasn’t used much until Behe in the late 90s or early 2000s)… Read more »
Claiming that Darwin’s theories are what gave racism strength doesn’t fit the fact that history shows pro-Darwinists (both within and outside the church) were quicker to drop racism than anti-Darwinists were. The reservoirs of the most open racism in America in the 1940s and beyond were also where anti-Darwin sentiment was strongest.
And it doesn’t hold water to suggest that racism wasn’t considered legitimate before Darwin, that’s simply historically false.
Thank you, Demo. You accurately described my point. I appreciate that you are appropriately critical of some of Pastor Wilson’s ideas but aren’t one of our enemies .
Thanks, jsm. I am a former member of Christ Church, and I have profited very much from Doug’s teaching and from the ecosystem that he has been at the center of in Moscow. But there is also an extreme culture war focus that has lead to (in my opinion, obviously) the twisting of scripture, the valorizing of conflict and contentiousness for its own sake, and an large number of people who have learned to hang on Doug’s every word and adopt his posture with no tools to think through issues, or be charitable to Christians who belief differently. I know… Read more »
where did you find the article?
Sorry, Zeph, which article did you have in mind? The text of the Dabney speech can be found here. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Relation_of_Negroes
That speech is wild, and the contrast with Darwin profound. Darwin (like nearly all White men of his age) thought that Black men were inferior, but also said he was fond of them and thought it terrible if harm was done to them, and advocated strongly for abolition long before most others did. In that Dabney speech, he openly expresses how much he despises Black people and wishes they were still enslaved even at a moment where his own church was trying to be more open-minded. He makes clear in the strongest language that Black people are not just biologically… Read more »
When Pastor Wilson wrote that book claiming that White slaveowners and slaves got along splendidly I wonder how he reconciled these 1868 passages from Dabney:
….
Demos’ letter is objectively inaccurate on all counts. “We don’t need to consider the passage because these people don’t really believe it. ” Nowhere in his article does Doug say we don’t need to consider the passage. “Redirect attention to other perceived problems rather than deal with the problem at hand. ” Precisely who is it that is defining the problem at hand? If the problem at hand is an unwillingness to submit to Romans 13, you are correct. If the problem at hand is people who demonstrate an open rebellion against *all* of God’s word are pretending to care about it… Read more »
I suggest you learn to read in the context of natural communication and an ongoing conversation rather than with third-grader rule lawyering. Doug understood my points because he is smart and understands rhetoric. Take some notes.
It doesn’t too much matter that a husband is “kind and gentle” if he uses his authority wrongly while being “kind and gentle”. It’s still harmful—but maybe add confusing on top of it. Husbands need to be working together with their wives—not making her work with him. Big difference. I hope you’ll understand this some day, Doug. It’s the way to an actually happy, intimate marriage. I know exactly how y’all operate. Women aren’t free to be themselves—they’re always performing for their husbands or being puppeted by them. It’s an awful way to live. Even if it doesn’t reach the… Read more »
Cassie,
Are you a believer? Do you believe that scripture teaches that wives should be subject to their husband’s? How about that we should all be subject to the government and the church elders and ultimately
Christ?
There is no authority that is weirded perfectly. And often even when the authority is right, we chafe.
Yes, I am a believer. And, I do believe that. 👍 Not like Doug believes it, though… Being “subject” to someone or something doesn’t mean being in bondage to them. It simply means being subject to them. It does say “obey” somewhere, too. I believe that, as well. But, again, this is gonna look different than in Doug’s churches. When I read about obedience in scripture I never bristle cuz it’s good. 🕊 I bristle all the time reading Doug’s comments on it. Can’t come to a decision together in marriage after earnestly talking it out together? Yes, I’m gonna… Read more »
I’m glad to hear it, and I don’t know that you are far from Doug on this, at least theoretically. The women on Doug’s family are far from door mats. As to “obey” I think every time husband and wife’s relationship is discussed (at least in Paul’s letters) it is some form of hypotas(x) meaning something like – be subject to, be a subject of, submit to. With children in Eph 6:1 and Col 3:20 and slaves in Eph 6:5 and Col 3:22 it is hypakouete, meaning obey/do what you are told. There is a difference here, at least of… Read more »
Oh, and yes, I do believe Doug thinks wives should be treated like children in terms of authority. Absolutely. And, they are.
No he doesn’t and no you don’t.
And, leads to ugly abuse. God wants better for His people. I think it’s a blot on His name that you purport His design in marriage to be like this. It’s not a light thing. That’s not how he operates with the church He loves—His bride. There have been serious consequences and people’s lives are on the line. Just because the husband is the head of the home and the wife is to be subject to him doesn’t mean you turn it into this harsh thing. Why not read it a little more softly? I mean, read the exact same… Read more »
I’m not sure you answered my question… What leads to ugly abuse? The simple presence of authority in a relationship?
Christ’s love for and authority over the church is explicitly given as the model for a husband’s love and authority. I’m not sure why you are trying to oppose them?
Haha, I wasn’t answering you there. 🙂 I wrote that before I saw your comment. No, authority doesn’t lead to ugly abuse. Abuse of authority can lead to ugly abuse—as we see in the CREC. Oh no, Doug’s female relatives are likely not doormats at all—you are given a platform and praised if you preach exactly what Doug does—even if you’re a female. It’s actually strategic—it helps pull in other women. But, if they had something contrary to say, I’m sure they would be bulldozed or silenced. That sort-of thing is not allowed by females. That’s just how it is… Read more »
Haha, as part of the CREC I can say confidently that you’re wrong.
Now what?
We rarely see this so-called “ugly abuse” in the CREC that you claim, and if we do it is dealt with properly by the elders.
And you still don’t define abuse-oh yeah that’s because you believe that the scriptural description of marriage is ‘abuse.’
Cassie,
I am in the CREC, and I was a member at Christ Church for years. As you can see from my posts here, I don’t agree with Doug on everything. Neither does my wife or friends in the CREC. Where are you getting your view of the Christ Church community or the CREC broadly?
Authority is mishandled sometimes in every community, and I have had disagreements with various pastors/elders/husband’s, but I don’t see the bulldozing and silencing that you see to believe is endemic. Have you been a member in a CREC church, or other conservative reformed church?
My husband had been reading Doug for years. We were recently a part of the CREC’s presiding minister’s church in Lynchburg, VA. After the elders started monitoring my Facebook posts (the offending content being my disagreement with the Christ Church protests, spiritual abuse, and considering women’s roles in the church) I got a little weirded out. They actually held a meeting with my husband and told him I needed to stop or I would not be welcome and could not be a member of the church. They also warned him about a Christian girlfriend of mine, mischaracterized her completely, and… Read more »
It’s not that authority is being mishandled sometimes. It’s being taught that way.
Cassie, The problem with these sort of discussion, and with much of what goes on at discernment blogs, was well known to the writers of scripture. Proverbs admonishes us to get both sides of a story before making up our minds. Christ admonishes us to take our concerns to a person privately, and then with a few others before anything is made public. It is very difficult to assess your claims because you are telling one side of the story. And you aren’t doing yourself any favors on the reliability side if things by saying that I and many if… Read more »
It’s perfectly fine to share your testimony about an unhealthy place. People can make there own judgments calls with whatever information they have. That’s pretty much normal life. What are you actually suggesting? For everyone on the internet to make personal calls to me and my former elders? I’m sorry, that’s ridiculous. And, I hear this all of the time from CREC folk. It’s a silly automated response. However, with the spiritually abusive atmosphere in the CREC it seems to work on a lot of people. I’m not gossiping, backbiting, or attacking authority. I’m sharing my testimony to warn others… Read more »
However, if it makes you feel better, I did go to my former elders before anything was made public. Then involved our other two elders when that went nowhere. Then when that went nowhere, *as well*, I wrote a letter to the church.
When a few people asked questions the elders lied. Just straight up lied and changed the narrative.
No bueno.
Cassie,
When did anyone say you shouldn’t share your experience. I have no problem with you coming on here and discussing your experience with the church. I have a problem with you diagnosing my wife and thousands of others as “cowering” without knowing anything about them.
It wouldn’t be wise for me to decide that your elders were in the wrong after hearing only your side of the story. That is the point of the biblical admonition. But you are certainly free to share your experiences in public or in private.
I want to add here that you probably *don’t* see it much because wives already know to cower to whatever their husbands want. And, do it with a smile. Cuz that’s godliness… 😔
Or, they already know “the rules”.
Also, your disagreements with other men don’t apply here because the rules are different for men than women in the CREC.
Cassie,
You aren’t winning yourself any sympathy here by accusing my wife of “cowering,” apparently diagnosing her not only from across the country, but without knowing a thing about her. If this is generally the level of effort you put in before making serious accusations about people maybe your pastor had a point?
I’m not trying to win sympathy. Not everything is strategy and manipulation tactics.
I’m sharing my testimony.
It makes a lot of sense to “diagnose” your wife if you all subscribe to the theology of the CREC—it affects marriage dynamics absolutely—unless you don’t subscribe to it but are members, anyway.
It’s basically the bread and butter of the denomination—patriarchy.
So, yeah, I feel comfortable doing that as a former member of the CREC from across the country.
I do wish you and your family well.
Cassie,
I mean win sympathy in the general sense of being a sympathetic character, of being charitable and pleasant. I wasn’t referring to any sort of manipulative communication.
Accusing people you know nothing about of all manner of misdeeds, when you literally know nothing about them except what denomination they attend, is exceedingly bad manners. It’s is also childish and ignorant. I suggest you reconsider whether your clairvoyance is an extraordinary gift if discernment you have been provided, or if it is all in your head?
I find Cassie to be a sympathetic woman who is very concerned about the treatment of women in conservative Christianity in general and in the reformed wing in particular. Your dismissive, clairvoyance comment reveals more about your view regarding the patriarchal treatment of women by their husbands and pastors. Instead of taking umbrage, maybe you should ask yourself, “What if she right?”
Maybe I have seen plenty of instances if abuse of authority in all sorts of churches (and other institutions). But I still won’t make any comments about your wife Will, from my position of ignorance over here. And yes, if I said your wife was deeply frustrated with your XYZ behavior it would be a false attempt at clairvoyance and extremely rude to boot.
Cassie, From the tone of your comments, would I be correct in thinking that you could be a fan of Lundy Bancroft, and his writings re: “abuse”? If you don’t know who Bancroft is, good for you. If you do know who he is, keep in mind that Bancroft is the rough equivalent of an unindicted (as of yet) “Keith Raniere”. In any case, I hope that you find this comment to be a gift and blessing, as it is intended. (A common thread among some Wilson critics is a grossly misguided devotion to Bancroft’s self serving, charlatan opinions on… Read more »
No, I don’t know who those people are.
I can’t speak for Doug’s spiritual state. I can state that he is way off on authority/submission stuff. And, that he’s hurting people.
When any preacher seems a bit obsessive on one or two topics you should really look out.
Lots of stuff has come out about Doug. Even from his own mouth. His followers don’t seem to care—excuse it or wave it all away.
When a pastor starts calling people cunts and small-breasted buddies, it’s time to walk away.
What does that content mean to you?
Well goodbye context! That’s certainly never important! :D
“he’s hurting people”
ah yes, all the anonymous sources who have come to me (confidentially of course) tell me Doug is a big meanie! Wah!
Oh, forgive Doug for being “a bit obsessive” about the Bible when most of the culture hates its teaching!
Interesting. So, you’re ok with Wilson referring to women he disagrees with as cunts, small-breasted biddies, and a plethora of other equally disparaging descriptions? Would you please explain how “context” excuses bad behavior.
Will, context is important. That’s why you prefer gossiping rather than accepting the truth. You promote lies and websites promoting lies which others accept and swallow them right down to their inmost parts.
So you think using that language is OK? Explain a context in which it’s fine to use such language to describe another human being. Would Jesus use such words to describe a woman, even one caught in adultery?
I certainly don’t spread gossip or promote lies or websites that do.
Now, it does appear that you are spreading lies about me.
Will, yes you do.
Dave, the feeling you have in the pit of your stomach, that’s your conscience telling you that you have stepped over the line.
Dave,
We were all part of a former conversation about the VICE article, etc, etc, etc.
Plus, context was given here—Doug referring to women he disagrees with as cunts, small-breasted buddies, etc, etc etc.
I would like to hold you steady here for a moment. Does that disqualify a pastor—to speak that way about the people?
Cassie, re: authority and submission, one way we love God, is by keeping His commandments, (John 14:15) aka, submitting to Him. Jesus greatly values the centurion’s experience of authority in Luke 7: “7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. 8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at… Read more »
Hey, you make a lot of great points, thank you.
However, as I responded to another guy on another thread who made mention of those verses—Jesus was commending this military guy’s faith in the power of God. And, especially as a gentile.
Jesus didn’t say he got relationship dynamics right between Himself and His bride.
The centurion got it right when it came to what Jesus, the Lord, was able to do. He believed in Him. And, his faith was rewarded.
Cassie,
Stick around if you can. Going forward, you may find more understanding and unity, than you first expected.
Thanks and Salt, Adad
Thanks but this is about experience not expectation.
Take care. 👍
Well put.
Doug, In response to your response to my letter: The difference is I haven’t made my belief on male/ female roles so vitally important that if my belief turns out to be wrong my entire world crumbles. If ; as you put it, my exegesis is just “pitons” of balsa wood, well I guess I’ll tumble into Jesus’ arms. I happen to know that your world would crumble. At least you sure give the impression that it’s a gospel issue and your world would crumble. I mean the lengths you go to to prove that you have something meaningful to… Read more »
Corrina, there is good reason to believe Mackie is not a real Christian, yet even if he were I’m sure Doug knows far more about the Bible than he.
Hahaha! I can’t laugh hard enough at this statement. You really are delusional if you actual believe this!! The tree is known by it’s fruit! It’s blatantly obvious for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
I can easily make my point. Mackie doesn’t believe that Christ died to satisfy the wrath of God. All I’m saying is that’s worrisome.
If the tree is known by its fruit how does that change my point? What Mackie says counts in that.
You obviously have not listened to much Tim Mackie. Investigate his classroom courses, or Bible project podcast, I believe he did a whole series on the atonement. You will see your statement about what he believes about atonement is not what you just stated. Kind of like what you Doug followers always state about people who mis quote what Doug believes.
I’ve spent 20 years in the crec reading Doug his books blog sermons etc. I know for a fact you haven’t investigated Tim Mackie that thoroughly.
I don’t know Mackie, but I struggle to see why “wrath of God was applied to Jesus” is designated as the end-all of determining Biblical orthodoxy. It’s a comparatively lately-derived piece of dogma that is never stated explicitly anywhere in the New Testament and is only derived as a gloss that makes assumptions from Isaiah 52-53 which neither Jesus nor any apostle or early Church Father made themselves. Not to mention that many of the people who insist on it seem to believe very different things from each other. Not saying it’s wrong to believe it, but it doesn’t have… Read more »
Jonathan, I agree that belief in substitutionary atonement is not required to be a Christian. And I loath the sort if argument that starts “he’s probably not a real Christian” a page should be taken from Wilson’s book here and we should say 1. Is he baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit? 2. Does he profess belief in salvation through Christ? If yes to both he is a Christian. He may not be living up to his baptism or the claim Christ has placed upon his life, but he should be considered a wayward brother… Read more »
My point is, not believing that is a big deal. A big enough deal that, even if we still consider him a brother, he should not be listened to as a teacher.
Is that satisfactory?
Jonathan, when is the first time that you directly see the claim “the wrath of God was applied to Jesus” in the New Testament or in the theologians of Church history? Not something that you can insinuate or interpret as somehow related to that, when you first see that direct claim being made? And would you state that all Fathers who wrote and spoke before that moment where it appeared should not be listened to?
Jonathan TCO,
I don’t think it is. NT Wright, for instance, has completely turned against penal substitutionary atonement (and he’s got other serious problems!). But he is a brilliant man and an excellent teacher on some topics. Refusing to be taught by him because of his views in atonement would only impoverish the scrupulous believer.
I didn’t say I was against penal substitution generally considered. I see the most complete early formulation of the atonement as coming in Hebrews 2, which can be interpreted to refer to penal substitution among several other things: Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made… Read more »
Jonathan,
Agreed on all counts. I think there is clearly an element of christis victor, moral influence, and penal substitutionary atonement going on. It is both and not either or.
And your last paragraph is my last paragraph put more eloquently. Fully agree.
Regarding the difference between empathy and sympathy, there is a destructive side to embracing empathy that hasn’t been discussed here: advocacy for the abused. Many well meaning Christians feel that embracing empathy is fulfilling the biblical mandate to mourn with those who mourn. In the short term, empathy may make you feel more passionate, but how many people can you empathize with before you burn out? Ten people? Twenty? You can hold on to the pain of that many people? Sympathy protects yourself and enables an advocate to stay in the game for a lot longer. When I say advocate,… Read more »
I think there is a kind of empathy that is detached and doesn’t involve emotion or moral judgment. It’s more of an intellectual skill that enables you to adopt someone else’s perspective in order to understand why he thinks, acts, and feels as he does. Call it the criminal profiler kind of empathy. But the kind of empathy that claims “I feel his pain as if it were my own” would indeed limit one’s usefulness as a cop. Or social worker or nurse or pastor or anyone exposed to a daily diet of human suffering.
Thanks, Jill. Honestly the whole empathy discussion has been bizarre. I know words are used in different ways, and there are those who privilege people’s “felt reality” and see empathy as “entering into their suffering.” But most people use it to mean being able to put your self into someone else’s place, understand their thought processes/emotions/motivations/constraints/etc. There is no obviously element of suspending judgement. I can understand why a person committed suicide without sanctioning it, and being able to understand it will make me wiser. Also, the whole etymology debate is irritating. Sympathy means to feel with, or hurt with,… Read more »
Ma’am, I think that the attribute that you identify as “profiler” is quite accurate and adept. Those who have, by vocation or happenstance, witnessed the evil that men do, would very much want to compartmentalize such experiences and not attempt to make them one of their own. I think that personal imaginings that anyone can feel another’s emotions or experience is illusion at best and narcissistic when carried to extreme. A thought experiment would be to attempt that with physical suffering; it does not cross the personal divide. We have our own individual emotions, stimulated by what we observe and… Read more »
Yes. I read some books written by FBI profilers about the early days in which they went all over the US conducting long interviews with convicted serial killers. Several of them talked about the danger of staring into the abyss and finding the abyss staring right back at them. One had a total physical breakdown from the strain of such close proximity to evil. I think the only safe approach is purely intellectual–using empathy to understand sociopathic thoughts and emotions in order to make predictions about some types of criminal behavior. I think we sometimes tend to forget that empathy… Read more »
Creating a dichotomy between preaching women and only letting women make coffee and plan baby showers is either disingenuous, or one part failure of imagination and one part an unfortunate lack of experience with churches that know how to lead women into fruitful ministry within our own sphere.
Also, the song is much older than Ray Charles. Well, okay, the song itself is only a few years older than Ray himself, but y’all know what I mean.
Whose version do you like better, Ray’s or Ella’s? (I wrote that letter, btw.)
I’m not a particular fan of the song itself, I just had that nugget in my brain for some reason about it being an older song that was popularized before Mr. Charles hit the scene. :)
Apropos to a whole lot of the lot, including the wife of Lot ;>) “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
It might even be argued that said deception occurred prior to the fall. Standing by for heavy rolls.
That’s not what done for us, though.
Wouldn’t it have to have preceded the fall? Eve could have believed the Serpent (i.e. been deceived) yet still have chosen to obey God. She could have said, “You may be right about all that but I’m not doing what God said not to.” So is the central issue the fact that she was deceived or the fact that she was disobedient?
That is a good question. The serpent impugned God’s motive; insinuated God was lying. If Eve was deceived that put her in agreement with the serpent. She had to think then about God that He is not truthful or good. She might still have obeyed with respect to the fruit, out of fear, or maybe respect for “the position”. Would that have left her innocent.
JohnM, I think that’s right. Eve could have been tempted without sinning “she saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye” and even “[it was] also desirable for gaining wisdom.” These are true things, but were a desire that was awakened by the serpent. However, believing the serpent that “you will not certainly die” (depending on exactly what you think this means) or agreeing with the implications that God is keeping wisdom from her against her good, would be to believe God was a lier or to believe evil about God, both… Read more »
In reply to Jill Smith, JohnM, and demos., What invariably catches my eye is the “ordo” of the structure of events: “was deceived” seems like the seminal event prior to the point of “transgression”. At first blush, it seems as if posse non peccare is still in view until “became a transgressor” (the overt intentional act) occurred. So here is question. Examine the source text 1 Timothy 2:14. The context is for prohibiting specific roles for women: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” As soon… Read more »
Another good question. Maybe that. Or maybe “…the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (NASB) and as a consequence “And he will rule over you”. In other words, one ordained consequence of the woman being deceived and transgressing is that women do not rule, regardless of whether or not they are generally more easily deceived. Except of course, the “he” who would rule over was/is her husband, and perhaps not men in general, so I’m not I not sure if that is the point either. Paul does provide an additional reason for a woman not exercising authority over a man… Read more »
Most of the Protestant explanations I’ve read focus primarily on the creation order. Because all sin involves some degree of self-deception, I think it’s a problem to assume Eve was “designed that way” and that, even before there was any hint of sinfulness in her conduct, she was especially prone to spiritual deception. That would suggest she was tainted with original sin. On thinking it over more carefully, I can see that she was inviting deception by letting the serpent appeal to her vanity and her curiosity. So being deceived was part of her transgression and not simply the cause… Read more »
Ma’am, Regarding “those roles pose a danger to men who will go along with bad ideas rather than say no to the women they love. And I’m not sure that Paul ever says that.” Although Paul does not, I think that Moses actually does say something along those lines. In God’s initial rebuke of Adam in pronouncing His curse, He says “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…” I do not think that a man should default to Nabal as a model, and every man is blessed to have an Abigail. Nonetheless, it seems as if the… Read more »
That’s a very good point;I had forgotten that. There are also all the stories about sexual seduction like Samson and Delilah. But that’s more a case of a woman clearheadedly using her charm to deceive a man who, blinded by lust, is willing to be deceived.
Qualifications of a ruler: he must disobey with eyes wide open so make sure guys that it’s open rebellion not deception. When is someone going to point out the actual verse in 1 Timothy 2 DOES NOT say that all women are easily deceived or more prone to being deceived than men because Eve was deceived. That is being read into it by implication!! It says the woman (singular)( Eve) was deceived and fell into sin. Nothing at all is said that therefore all women are more easily deceived. Unless you want us to read into the text all men… Read more »
Ever since Adam’s rebellion all men (and women) are in fact in rebellion against God, unless and until they repent toward God with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Whether or not women are more easily deceived, the text does connect Eve being deceived with the prohibition against women holding authority over men. That’s why it gets brought up.
However, I do believe the creation order is more the reason.
I think the whole passage is not being read in context but single verses are being plucked out of context and therefore being used improperly and a whole new meaning is being created and attributed to Paul teaching something that he simple wasn’t. The point of Paul’s letter to Timothy in Ephesus is clearly stated in the first chapter. False teachers were within the church right there in Ephesus both men and women. Some of the men were called out by name. Alexander and Hymenaus. There was a common belief being taught as part of the cult of Diana that… Read more »
Paul’s states his reason for writing “..these things…” ( from 3:14) to Timothy explicitly in 3:15 – “…so you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God..”
“These things” include 2:12-14, where Paul admonition and instruction is given in light of circumstances and events that very far preceded Timothy’s time.
Men seem to be ruled by their appetites. Sex and food. Also having their ego massaged and addiction to wanting power. Likely God made Eve to balance him out. Yes, Eve was deceived, but where was Adam? Would Adam have been deceived without Eve. A balanced partnership would possibly have saved us from a world of hurt.
Oh my goodness is Leslie arguing that God’s creational distinction between men and woman is the reason sin happened?
yeah no. Unless I’m major-league misunderstanding you.
I believe Adam was right there beside her watching the whole thing because scripture says she gave to the man who was with her. He openly rebelled and since he was created first the command was given directly by God to Adam. Nothing is said that Eve was directly told by God. Could Adam have given Eve faulty information concerning God’s command? Could she have misinterpreted? Who knows? I don’t believe Eve was targeted by the serpent because he had some inside scoop that she could be easily deceived. Adam sure didn’t do anything to stop it ( failure to… Read more »
Eve tells the serpent that they aren’t allowed to eat from the tree. Of course she knew. They both did. What are you trying to argue?
Yes, Eve knew but my question is who told her? We know Adam was told directly by God. Could it be because he was created first? We aren’t specifically told how Eve got the information she was given about the tree or why she mis- spoke/ or mis interpreted the actual command to the serpent because what she said was obviously twisted. Why was it?
Also to assume that the serpent had inside information about God supposedly creating Eve with such a deficiency is quite an assumption, I think it’s giving a created being way too much credit and also perhaps no such deficiency even existed in Eve in the first place. This is just my opinion of course but I base it off the implication that it no where says it in scripture. Neither does it say because this is what in fact took place, Eve was deceived that all women after her bear that eternal deficiency. It’s also debatable that what you seem… Read more »
“Men seem to be ruled by their appetites.” That sounds about right. What do you think rules women?
Are you blaming God for not creating a balanced partnership? Not sure what you’re trying to say.
Today’s irony supplement brought to you by The Vice Squad:
Cassie: Doug’s a misogynist! He called women cunts and small-breasted biddies! Where’s my fainting couch?
Leslie: How’s this for misandry? Men seem to be ruled by their appetites. Sex and food. Also having their ego massaged and addiction to wanting power.
Kristina, I think that a lot of women who found 50 Shades appealing as sexual fantasy were not Christian women who believe in the duty of submission. Most of the Christian women I know read just enough to slam it shut as badly written, dehumanizing pornographic trash. Some women enjoy sex scenes in which other women are humiliated, beaten, and degraded. While I think that enjoyment is both prurient and pathological, it doesn’t translate into wanting to be brutally dominated in real life. “I wish my husband were more assertive sometimes” is a very long way from “Honey, do you… Read more »
I didn’t think Doug was talking about Christian women who believe in submission in that post, either. Maybe Christian women who go to churches in which that is explained away. My point was that they say they don’t want a strong man in their relationship and yet they read that.
Hey is there a Doug Wilson for Dummies…. Seriously
I know you have nuggets but I can’t grasp them cuzmenotsosmart … Jesus spoke to fishermen in fishing men talk
Farmers in farmer talk so the lame-‘men could grasp a complex deep teaching on His kingdom … I appreciate your intelligence and the fact your a fine word smith but when even a 15min clip chews the majority up and leaves them saying to themselves “man I’m not smart even to follow this obvious smart dude ugh”
:)
Pastor Wilson, thanks a lot for answering my question on “ALL truly Christian roads lead to the “Post-Millennial” vision”.
Best regards in Christ,
Robert
Pastor Wilson, you just wrote an article claiming the BLM movement is dismissible because the founders are “atheist Marxists”. Aside from the question of how relevant someone no regular BLM supporter knows the name of are to a social movement, the facts are that none of the 3 recognized founders of the BLM movement are atheist.
More importantly, you keep ignoring that the founder of the League of the South, an organization you have repeatedly supported, is an open racist who has advocated for racial violence. And you refuse to take back your support publicly.
Double standard much?
By not replying to your plethora of posts and accusations, it would seem he keeps ignoring you. I don’t think silence is agreement, however.
I don’t think silence means he’s not reading them. On occasion he does reply. and on the issue of the ugly racism expressed by the League of the South, I know at least one case where he definitely read my comment even though he didn’t respond to the substance in it. I know of a few other incidents where I could infer that he had read my comment even though he didn’t want to bring more attention to it by replying directly.
Why don’t you write this question to Doug to answer in his letters instead of spamming the comment section?
As to your point about BLM, out of curiosity what are their religions? They certainly behave like atheist Marxists tend to. Also, I hope you aren’t trying to justify BLM, just using it to make your other point.
I did write to him. He very rarely replies to my letters – until recently he hadn’t replied to any at all for many years, but then I called that out publicly in the comment section and low and behold he’s replied to several in the months since then, so I do believe he reads the comments.
In terms of the three “founders” of the BLM movement (who I don’t think are very important or really hold meaningful power), one is a Christian, one is a Jew, and one is a former Christian who fell away from the church and now dabbles in various spirituality stuff.
I didn’t know that beforehand as I knew relatively little about them at all, but Pastor Wilson’s claim was unsourced and struck me as unlikely, so I did about 5 minutes of research and found he was wrong.
Jonathan: Violence bad! Wealth bad!
Also Jonathan: Defends Burn Loot Murder, a violent, bloodthirsty organization and movement whose homosexual Marxist founders became millionaires off the deaths of black men.
No wonder Doug doesn’t respond to your screaming fits. Kinda hard to take you seriously, what with your loud double standards and all.
I correct false statements regardless of who has made them, in this very comment section I have more than once corrected a false statement made about Pastor Wilson. I would even defend a publican, prostitute, or sinner from false accusation if need be.
Stretching a simple correction of error into an entire guilt by association fallacy is neither logical nor Christian.
And yet, guilt by association is exactly what you’re trying to smear Doug with. Didn’t someone say that’s neither logical, nor Christian? Never gets old watching you fall into your own traps. You deliberately left out that all three BLM founders are Marxists, that two of them are flaming homosexuals, and that two of them are millionaires with the third approaching millionaire status — rich off the backs of dead black men. Marxism is the root of the worst evil of the twentieth century: Communism. Over 100 million dead — and counting. Pure, unadulterated evil. You also leave out the… Read more »
No, I’m not trying to smear Pastor Wilson with “Guilt by Association”. He went out of his way to support the League of the South and claim they were not racist, in books, blog spots, and mass emails, despite his relationship with them being more than strong enough to know better. When he spoke at events hosted by League of the South leaders, spoke alongside League of the South leaders, invited League of the South leaders to speak at his own events, and co-wrote a book with a League of the South leader, he did so for the specific purpose… Read more »
Demo, your support for the civil authorities is still difficult for me to grasp. Previously, you took the stance that Old Testament individuals who defied the ruling authorities were called by God to take that action. In today’s Constitutional Republic, it appears you do not hold to the Constitution being the authority that the elected officials and our government should follow. When the Constitution was written, there was a general understanding that God ruled over all and that the Constitution came under Him and the individual state governments and local governments also came under His authority. You think that there… Read more »
I think what Brenda was asking about is clarification of what you meant concerning abusive husbands in Paul’s day. That is, there of course were misbehaving husbands at that time and Paul’s admonitions weren’t given to a people who didn’t know what he was talking about. “Why did he say that? We are perfect husbands!”
At least that is how I took that comment.
Imagine my folly when I got sources ready on the history of the League and the South and Pastor Wilson’s repeat and vocal support for them, imagining that Pastor Wilson himself or someone else here would actually want to engage on a real discussion of the issue.
Pastor Wilson wished to discuss the League of the South and explain in what manner he supported them several times in the past, now that someone has done their research he is silent?
“Pastor Wilson wished to discuss the League of the South and explain in what manner he supported them several times in the past, now that someone has done their research he is silent”?
There are several descriptors of this behavior that comes to mind.
Sad, but his supporters aren’t interested in the truth. In other words:
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?” Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center, Iowa as the audience laughed. “It’s, like, incredible.”