Whited Privilege
Amen, and amen!! I used to be white, but then I did some work outdoors. Now I’m a redneck.
In all seriousness–which is hard to do after that laugh-inducing piece–have you read or listened to Candace Owens much? Some of the greatest reactions are when a pretty black woman breaks the current ideolatry into pieces. And then she had the audacity to marry a white man! You might be inclined to invite her to Moscow.
Note: “ideolatry” is not trademarked. Feel free to use.
Malachi
Malachi, I have seen her name float by, but haven’t checked anything out. Consider it filed away for future reference.
This may be the best thing you have ever written. I’m surprised you haven’t gotten more flack online for it. Attacking this idol is the unforgivable sin for respectable “conservatives.”
Will
Will, the current strategy is to pretend that I don’t exist. At the same time, it is a nice breather.
Women, Wymyn, Wimmen, as the Case May Be
1. Why is it acceptable to receive teaching from Dr Rosaria Butterfield but not Rachel Green Miller?
2. What are the limits on Dr Butterfield’s teaching . . . ie when can she teach, when can’t she, whom can she teach and in what circumstances? Why might it be acceptable to hear her at a conference, but not in a Sunday Service or mid-week church gathering?
You may have answered these before, in which case, can you point me to the relevant posts, please?
With many thanks and every blessing,
Andrew
Andrew, the problem with Rachel Miller’s book is that the thesis falls apart as soon as you pick it up to look at it. If she had written a fine book on that same subject, I would be happy to read and profit from it. I believe that the legitimacy of such books largely rides on the intended audience, and the stated topic.
Thank you for your work articulating what orthodoxy is up against: heterodoxy that cannot stand orthodoxy and so must work to oppose it. In the video that you linked I, a PCA TE, was caught on camera coming to the microphone because I challenged the moderator’s ruling that Warhurst’s comments were intemperate. Warhurst continued unabated and so nothing more needed to be said at that moment. Several months later, back in my presbytery, Chesapeake, I challenged the moderator again. This time because he had ruled out of order an overture from a session stating that out homosexuals were unfit for office in the PCA. I lost my challenge. I was also denied the ability to speak (yet) to the overtures that our session had made: to give General Assembly original jurisdiction over the Revoice 2018/Johnson/Memorial matter, and to disallow digital vote coordination at General Assembly (something the National Partnership has been pioneering.) I appreciate your posts and your prayers.
Nicolas
Nicolas, keep fighting the good fight.
A Word in Defense of Rosaria, If I May
I read all the way through this post and I’m still not offended, so now I’m disappointed.
Mitch
Mitch . . . and I’m offended that you’re disappointed.
The Lost Virtue of Sexism
This article on sexism in the Bible is making so many so-called conservative evangelicals on the internet spin up to maximum RPMs. So much angst over simply stating the obvious, an article so innocuous that if Paul had read it in his Roman cell so long ago, he would have simply nodded in agreement. I do love November. This is the month that Wilson, like Gideon, comes into the town square at night and rips down the town idols, and the townspeople wake up and wonder what happened.
C
C, thanks. If anybody wants me, I am in the wine vat waiting for an angel.
NAPARC and So On
I feel personally attacked having recently gotten into a Facebook argument with some/many people I admire. My interest with your work started back with Credenda Agenda when I was introduced by my husband 21 years ago and then I left; I admired you for dealing with all the drama, I just didn’t have room for that in my busy child-rearing life at that point.
I’ve been back for about 3 years with a lot of reading and catching up to do, and I’ve never been offended by the things most people end up in arms over. But one thing I can’t understand, and I realize it’s not the be all end all (or really anything at all with how I’m currently feeling about the PCA) but why aren’t you/can’t you be in Naparc? In a nutshell; even with repentance, why do so many people I like; dislike you?? I just quietly left the conversation because I am definitely not the person you want defending you; but since it is November . . . can you please defend yourself? And restore my confidence in myself for enjoying everything you write so much.
Debra
Debra, thanks for the kind words. When I don’t defend myself, it is taken as a confirmation. When I do defend myself, it is taken as evidence that I am lying.
To he who must not be named:
Thank you for doing No Quarter November. Thank you especially for your post in defense of Rosaria Butterfield. It is disturbing how vocal the Revoice proponents have been. Although it is not yet over for the PCA, we have to start fighting soon.
Thanks again.
David
David, I agree you have to start fighting soon. As in, like a few years ago.
I was just informed that you believe in baptismal regeneration and that you deny both irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints. Since you seem to be utterly unaware of your holding those doctrinal positions, having consistently written, spoken, preached, and lived as though you actually believe the opposite, I thought it my Christian duty to inform you of what you really believe. Honestly, you should really try to keep up.
Sincerely,
Andrew
Andrew, I do so want to keep up — but they keep changing the location where they keep my real beliefs.
Do you have a list of the hundreds of PCA pastors who have signed a petition against Steven Warhurst? It would be good to have that list.
Ray
Ray, I don’t know how to locate it, but I saw a list of names float by on Facebook. It is out there.
Prophecy?
So in my Bible reading, particularly the New Testament, I come across a lot of passages that say that a certain prophecy has been fulfilled, but then I can’t actually find the Old Testament passage where the supposed prophecy was made. For example, Luke 24:46 says that it was written that “The Christ should suffer and on third day rise from the dead”. But there isn’t actually a prophecy that says that in the Old Testament. Same thing with a passage like Matthew 2:23. There is no passage that says that the Messiah would be from Nazareth.
Now I do understand some level of response to these more or less “problematic” passages. Maybe the Matthew 2 passage is referring to Jesus and his lowly place in society. Nathaniel said that nothing good could come from Nazareth, so maybe this was just in fulfillment of the Isaiah 53:2 passage which says that he would spring up as a root from dry ground and would have no majesty about him. Perhaps the Luke 24 passage is something like the whole of the Old Testament pointing toward the Resurrection after three days, with ideas of Psalm 16:8-10 and Hosea 6:2 applying to this prophecy. Clearly Peter thought David was on to something when writing Psalm 16, because Peter talks about how that was a Resurrection prophecy in Acts 2. I from what I understand guys like Tertullian liked to think that Hosea 6:2 has prophetic value when it came to the Resurrection.
I think that it would be cool to see you interact with theses alleged “problematic passages” a little bit. If not, thank you for your time anyways.
William
William, I think that part of the problem is that modern interpreters don’t read the OT with a (modest) typological understanding. In other words, Jesus got the three days and three nights from Jonah. I would refer you to my commentary on Hebrews called Christ and His Rivals.
The Problem Began Earlier
I’m very grateful to have discovered you and this place in time for November! Thank you so much for all the free books! In “Same-Sex Mirage” you made a point that is especially profound. In response to a question from Matthew Vines about “LGBT youth whose families reject them” you said, “it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the family’s rejection of that child began long before any controversy over sexual issues began.” I’m sure you wrote about that in depth somewhere; I’d appreciate knowing where! Thank you so much, again.
Kristin
Kristin, no, I don’t believe I have written in greater detail on that point — though I probably should. The basic point is that basic relationship choices are prior to sexual choices. And the two are intertwined.
Doug, A quick rundown on Candace Owens. She’s a relatively articulate (and obviously attractive) black woman whose primary role (one which has proven quite lucrative for her) is to promote a certain brand of color-blind civic nationalism to white conservatives as an alternative to the radical anti-white, Cultural Marxist ideology of the left. She is a gate-keeper, often employing the standard conservative talking point that the “leftists are the real racists,” that blacks can be convinced to leave the “democrat plantation” of infinite welfare and low expectations and vote for conservative republicans. In past comments I have briefly addressed the… Read more »
The linked article spends a lot of time convincingly showing that progressives are unapologetically hypocritical. Fair enough. But the conclusion — they’ll slander us anyway, so we may as well be hung for sheep as for lambs — doesn’t follow very well. There are many conservatives (such as our host, or myself) who have serious problems in principle with what Pastor Wilson calls the “racial vainglory” behind the extravagant visions of magnificent white-only nations. In short, we don’t believe the sweeping claims of genetic superiority, and are skeptical as well of the idea that “white” culture has anything really remarkably… Read more »
No one said anything about compromising own principles. You can continue to be a race-blind civic nationalist if that’s what you want. The point is to not get tricked into playing the left’s game of proving you’re more anti-racist than they are. When you say leftists are the real racists, you’re showing them that you accept their moral framework and that the accusation of “racist” still has power over you. “Racist,” “white supremacist,” “nazi,” etc. are never employed in good faith. They are flex words to shut whites up (and only whites) or to keep them on the hamster wheel… Read more »
No, the part where we reject the false system of values that includes “racism” per se is fine. The problem is the proposal that whites should build an isolated, race-pure enclave around a consciously-adopted racial myth of inherent genetic or cultural superiority. That would, of course, indeed be called racist by the left. Unfortunately, Pastor Wilson would also condemn it, though under a different name and for different reasons, and he’d be right to do so; calling it “racial vainglory” seems fitting enough. Put another way, it’s certainly true that we should not fall in line with condemnations of “racism”… Read more »
“The problem is the proposal that whites should build an isolated, race-pure enclave around a consciously-adopted racial myth of inherent genetic or cultural superiority.” No one makes the claim that whites are “genetically superior” to blacks in some general, overarching, cosmic way. There are some ways in which blacks are “genetically superior” to whites, particularly in certain physical traits that enable them to excel in certain sports. Whites, on the other hand, have superior intelligence to blacks, and East Asians have superior intelligence to whites. Cultural superiority, on the other hand, can be objectively observed, and whites objectively build better… Read more »
“It’s also not a sin to prefer to live around people of your own race. That is a natural human tendency. ”
Well there’s a non sequitur. A high percentage of “natural human tendencies” are in fact sins. Using “this is natural to humans” is a worthless argument for those who believe in original sin, unless you can show that the tendency is one of the things commended in scripture.
My point was that homogeneous societies function better because they are natural.
You did say that, and that is something that could be debated. But that’s not all you said.
However, that is another non sequitur. Many natural things are destructive. Many unnatural things (e.g., charity, self-denial, mercy, diligence, some types of education) are conducive to social functioning. And it is also post hoc ergo propter hoc to claim that being natural is the reason that homogeneous societies function better.
It should be self-evident that thrusting people into circumstances that are deeply unnatural to them and which they clearly try to avoid will cause them to function worse individually and collectively than they otherwise would.
Yes, if it is in fact that kind of involuntary “thrusting.” Most of the time, people move about and mix with others for their own reasons. It’s not self-evident that doing so is either “unnatural” (since it has happened continuously throughout human history) or inherently problematic. What you’re describing could as well be attributed to whatever injustice or upheaval resulted in the “thrusting” as to the fact that people of different cultural backgrounds wound up living close together.
I don’t think it is proved at all that white people build better societies than blacks and everyone else. I think there is a stronger case for saying that people that has a more than thousand years of Christian history and culture builds better societies than those that don’t. They may happen to be white, but correlation is not causation. Let’s look at the next thousand years of African and Chinese Christianity and compare them with the coming thousand years of white godlessness. If whites still make better societies then, you might have a case.
This is insane.
Is it? Why?
Aha…on Facebook. That is searchable. So here is that list of PCA pastors who signed a protest against Warhurst.
Also, I think the gist of Kristin’s question might be answered in Father Hunger. I don’t recall it speaking specifically to parents rejecting homosexual kids, but the general principles are there.
The list is also available in the minutes of the general assembly, page 80.
Re: William’s question on the Nazarene
check these sources:
http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=938&article=1391
https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-resources/messianic-prophecy/the-messiah-would-be-called-a-nazarene/
https://www.catholic.com/qa/he-shall-be-called-a-nazarene-where-in-old-testament
–>called a Nazarene