Letters on the Lock and Key Business. And More.

Inappropriate Appropriation

In your article titled “Appropriate This” you ask the question: “What do you call it when you have an acute case of vicarious embarrassment for someone who ought to be embarrassed about what they are doing, but somehow inexplicably is not?” I could not help but smile and recall a number of years ago when the wife and I perused the line of motorcycles on display at a local bike show. This was during the relatively short-lived revival of the popularity of choppers, when the trend (at least among show bikes) was for each build to be more outrageous than the last. Never being prone to following the crowd, we were attempting to avoid voicing too loudly how ridiculous we found the bikes to be, when my wife coined a new term that we still use to this day. She quipped that we should call them Karaoke Bikes because we were embarrassed for the bike’s builders even though we’d never even met them. Maybe “Karaoke” should be another choice available under the Gender category for politically-correct questionnaires. In fact, adopting that might simplify forms a good deal since you would only need to offer three options: Male, Female, or Karaoke.

Soylent

Soylent, tell your wife that is perfect. And Karaoke Queen has a certain ring to it.

No wonder you’ve been black-balled by the top men. You can’t expect to make this much sense and get away with it.

Ed

Ed, I was wondering what it was . . .

Lock and Key

Way too much wisdom here, but thank God there are still those like you willing to say it. Regarding this: “The liberation of women has consisted of getting them to despise and throw away their glory, and not surprisingly, one of the corresponding sins of our age is cowardice in the men—in preachers and politicians, in generals and CEOs, in elders of churches, and in boards of directors. Apply any kind of indignant pressure today, to any particular group of males, and everybody folds like a card table you bought at a yard sale.” One man who hasn’t folded like a cheap card table in the face on a cultural onslaught from every side the likes of which we have never seen is President Donald J. Trump. Even with all his faults and eccentricities, he has thrilled those of us who have tired of wimps not defending our views and our electoral hopes over these last several decades.

Mike

Mike, I do agree with you that this characteristic of his—that of not backing down (even when he should) is right at the foundation of his popularity. A lot of people are so sick of everybody backing down when they shouldn’t . . .

You wrote, “They are both required to be chaste, but when they are unchaste, they are giving up different things. Chastity is a virtue for both sexes, but chastity in a woman is her glory. When a woman throws away her glory, she is losing something of greater value (to her) than a man loses.” After re-reading the post several times just to see if I’d overlooked something, I believe you abandoned the field without identifying what the thing is, aside from chastity itself, that a man gives up when he is unchaste. As I understand your position:  a) men and women give up different things, and b) the unchaste woman gives up her glory, but c) the unchaste man does not, because the glory of the man is courage, not chastity. My inner pedant is here reminded of 1 Cor. 11 and struggles to read “the woman is the glory of man” as “courage is the glory of man.” I don’t read Greek, but that seems like a stretch. My questions: If not his glory, what actually is it, aside from chastity itself, that an unchaste man gives up? Why is courage of greater value to a man than chastity? Follow up: I’m hoping you’ll show some of your work on the notion that the glory of a woman is her chastity. Again, my inner pedant wants to have a conversation about her hair at this point, but that seems like it might open the door to some silliness. Postscript: I’d like to register my displeasure at the disabling of comments here. I found your actual posts much more engaging and thought-provoking when they were framed and re-framed in the swirl of discussion.

Rob

Rob, thanks. First, on the comments. Yes, I miss some aspects of comment life also, but I still think it has been a net gain. The absence of trolls has been refreshing. And don’t forget that comments are open twice a week—once with this letters feature, and on Thursday’s Content Cluster.

To your question, I think that what a man loses in being unchaste is his ethical strength or ethical focus. “Give not thy strength unto women, Nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings” (Prov. 31:3).  He gets spread thin, diffused’ “Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets?” (Proverbs 5:15–16, ESV)

And the glory of young men is their strength. “The glory of young men is their strength: And the beauty of old men is the gray head” (Prov. 20:29). And courage is strength at the testing point. All that said, I do need to develop all this.

Re: “Under Lock and Key” | As the American branch of the Evangelical Protestant Church thinks about cultural and political theology and how their local churches can prophetically and biblically engage the current political society that is marinating in their lies (including any lies the Church is marinating in, as well), every Christian pastor and leader worth their salt would take this blog entry seriously. And they would consider, if not for a fleeting moment, that their current cultural engagement is an ambiguously egalitarian travesty of biblical proportions (and I’m just talking about the so-called pro-life Reformed complementarians who barely said a word, much less an admonishing word, against the insanity that is Revoice).

Trey

Trey, thanks much.

Re: “Under Lock and Key” The thing I find most amusing about the uproar and outrage over your comments is that, by not reading the second half of what you said, critics failed to note that Christianity actually places more restrictions on men than traditional (and currently secular) culture does. Because pretty much up until 10 minutes ago, nearly all societies, regardless of religion or cultural customs, expected women to be chaste. Christianity didn’t really demand anything new of them. Instead, it offered a path for forgiveness of past sexual sin, and it included women like Rahab in the genealogy of our Savior. It is men who Christianity really restricts. While the world lauds—and has always lauded, and continues to laud, despite a few #MeToo protests to the contrary—male promiscuity, the Bible says that not only is it not okay to sleep around, it’s not even okay to want to sleep around. The biggest lie our culture has pulled on women is that Christianity is somehow a bad deal for them and a great deal for men. We know from research, for example, that women look back on past sexual relationships with regret, while men look back on them fondly. When it comes to chastity, women are being asked to do something that most of them want to do anyway. It’s male sexuality, not female sexuality, that is more restrained by the demands of the Bible, which we’d know if we were honest about the differences between men and women.

Lori

Lori, thanks for making some good sense right there.

The Vice of Effeminacy

Thought you might like this article.

Amanda

Amanda, I did enjoy it. Thank you.

Sacramental Question

Re: the last 4 years of your writings on paedo-baptism and paedo-communion

While in a work situation (surgery fellowship) that has me unavoidably in an area without a local, faithful body of believers that adheres to a paedo-communion conviction, do you think it inappropriate for me to administer the Lord’s table to my family on a regular basis?

Nate

Nate, yes. I would discourage that, in that the government of the family is not given the authority of the keys. But one possible solution is to find a church (where you are hoping to settle down permanently) and ask them to commission you, as they would a seminarian. That way you are doing what you do under the authority of the church.

The War Inside

I have been reading the new edition of A Justice Primer and it is very helpful in matters related to the degrees of sin and justice. I have also been reading the Puritans and they have a lot to say on the degrees of sin. I have found them interesting on the subject of evil thoughts, it’s a topic that often gets neglected despite all that is written in the evangelical world on the subject of the conscience. And I know there are many Christians who struggle with intrusive evil thoughts. How should we distinguish between sins of the thought and sins of action? Can sins of thought ever be punished as crimes (since such sins if acted out would probably be crimes)? Should Christians who are tormented by wicked thoughts confess such sins to each other since such sins of the imagination are heinous and vile?

Kelvin

Kelvin, that depends. If the wicked thoughts are fleeting and momentary, I would consider them to be temptations from outside, and there is no need to confess temptations. But if the wicked thoughts are embraced and treasured for long periods of time, then I think the person ensnared by them should seek out pastoral help.

Mary Magdalene

The historical Mary of Magdala was not a prostitute—hermeneutic research has definitively proven that. She was a widow of substantial, independent means who helped to finance Jesus’ ministry. Please stop perpetuating early Catholicism’s viciously misogynistic lie. Btw, I’m a 70-year-old Christian woman who really has had it with the nonsense (I’m being really polite here) you insist upon spouting to people who are too ignorant to know differently.

Peggy

Hi, Peggy. A negative is a very difficult thing to prove, even using “hermeneutic research.” It is true that we cannot prove definitively that Mary had been a harlot, but we do know a few things. An unnamed woman who was of dubious reputation washed the feet of Jesus (Luke 7:37), and Mary is introduced to us by name right after that (Luke 8:3). And even if those two women are not the same woman, when Mary Magdalene is introduced, we are told that Jesus had cast seven devils out of her. The only other person in the gospels to have had multiple demons was Legion—the problem was not a trifle, and not really consistent with the image you paint of a respectable widow.

The Battle Over the Dictionary

I wanted to register my deepest agreement with your observation regarding dictionaries, and the battle being over the right to define the world. I observed this myself a decade ago, when numerous states were proposing civil unions— effectively replicating every conceivable right that married couples possessed to any two people who wished to enter such a union. But identical rights were not sufficient for the activists—they said, in effect: “We aren’t satisfied just having identical rights, we also want the word “marriage.” Their true adversary was that infernal dictionary. Similarly, in effect, the Obergefell decision was simply a battle to change the dictionary definition of a word in English. It was never really a question of whether to grant such unions, it was a question of what to call those unions. Had “equal rights” been the true goal of the activists, that could have been achieved in various alternate means. But the Supreme Court, by judicial fiat, successfully overruled the dictionary, declaring that a civil union between two men must be called “marriage.” It became clear to me that the battle wasn’t ever really over rights or freedoms, but over the public perception of legitimacy. A “civil union” may have granted every conceivable legal right to two gay men, but it couldn’t confer the (false) perception of legitimacy like the word “marriage.” Same sex mirage indeed. And the door was pried that much further open, where now we get to similarly redefine such seemingly timeless concepts as “male” and “female.”

Daniel

Daniel, thanks.

So This Was Obviously Necessary

Because I must: Lydia, oh! Lydia, say have you met Lydia Oh! Lydia, the tattooed lady She has eyes that folks adore so And a torso even more so Lydia, oh! Lydia, that “Encyclopedia” Oh! Lydia, the Queen of tattoo On her back is the Battle of Waterloo Beside it the Wreck of the Hesperus too And proudly above the waves The Red, White and Blue You can learn a lot from Lydia She can give you a view of the world In tattoo if you step up and tell her where For a dime you can see Kankakee or Paree Or Washington crossing the Delaware Oh! Lydia, oh! Lydia, say have you met Lydia Oh! Lydia, the tattooed lady When her muscles start relaxin’ Up the hill comes Andrew Jackson Lydia, oh! Lydia, that “Encyclopedia” Oh! Lydia, the champ of them all For two bits she will do a Mazurka in Jazz With a view of Niag’ra that no artist has And on a clear day you can see Alcatraz You can learn a lot from Lydia. La la la La la la La la la La la la Come along and see Buff’lo Bill with his lasso Just a little classic by Mendel Picasso Here is Captain Spaulding exploring the Amazon And Godiva, but with her pajamas on La la la La la la La la la La la la Here is Grover Whalen unveilin’ the Trylon Over on the west coast we have Treasure Islan’ Here’s Nijinsky a doin’ the Rhumba Here’s her Social Security numba La la la La la la La la la La la la Lydia, oh! Lydia, say have you met Lydia Oh! Lydia, the champ of them all She once swept an Admiral clear off his feet The ships on her hips made his heart skip a beat And now the old boy’s in command of the fleet [Songwriters: George Fenton Lydia the Tattooed Lady lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC]

Melody

Melody, thanks so much for sharing what the Lord laid on your heart. Anybody else?

A Discouraged Wife

I thought your advice to the husband of a discouraged wife was useful. However, my wife (and mother of our six children) found it entirely lacking. From her perspective, words of encouragement fall well short of practical assistance; Husband’s Praise doesn’t change a poopy diaper.

Tom

Tom, yes, and yes but. Of course a husband and wife are in the trenches together, and of course the husband should pitch in when it is an “all hands on deck” situation. At the same time, defined role relationships within the home remain important. In part they are what make gifts across that boundary possible. The center is for the husband to be a hard worker at his task, and an admirer of his wife’s hard work in her vocation, and someone who does not sit on his hands when a crisis is going down.

J, I’m surprised Pastor Doug didn’t recommend his daughter’s book Loving the Little Years but I am happy to! Rachel Jankovic is the author and although the husband’s encouragement and support are essential to this stage of family life, her book helped me immensely when I had my first “set” of 3/3. Ted Tripp’s Shepherding a Child’s Heart is also a huge help—the more obedient the children are, the easier the days (and nights) are, and he lays out a biblical, specific method to that end.

Amanda

Amanda, thanks for mentioning Rachel’s book. That had occurred to me, but then slipped my mind.

The Federal Vision Just Won’t Go Away

Thank you. Thank you. The impact that you and men like Jordan and Leithart have had on my Biblical thinking has been profound. Thank you for once again proclaiming the glorious gospel, Christus Victor and no quarter to the sins of our culture or the sins of our hearts. My day started in discouragement by hearing a local pastor, Dewey Roberts, on a podcast. He slathered rather a lot of bad juju over men who I have come to highly respect, including you. He recently authored Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision: A Theological Analysis and Practical Evaluation. I know you are FVNM, but part of me hopes you will review his book, although the other part of me thinks that will just feed the beast.

Josiah

Josiah, thanks for the kind words.

Pastor Wilson, Concerning your interview on Iron Sharpens Iron about discontinuing your identification with the Federal Vision, I must say I agreed with essentially everything you said and found it to be nothing but biblical and in accord with the Westminster Standards. As I hear those who condemn FV as heresy and are still convinced you are among the FV heretics (or are at least their first cousin), I think perhaps the issue is more guilt by association than anything else. I am very thankful for your “FV No Mas” post, because it showed to me that what some of the oatmeal stout FV people are and what you are, are two different animals. But then the last 30 minutes of the Iron Sharpens Iron episode has Dr. Dewey Roberts on, and while I don’t agree with everything he says and think he is missing some important nuances (especially concerning final justification being a justification/vindication that differs from justification by faith alone, which I do not think is equivocation as he seemed to think, at least not on your part), I do wonder about your signing the Joint Federal Vision Profession given the differences concerning regeneration and the imputation of the active obedience of Christ among the signatories. Based on your interview on the radio program, I imagine you would say that you signed it despite disagreement on these very important doctrines with the understanding that all who signed the statement do believe in some sense that we are regenerated (or if that is a word they do not wish to use, that we are raised from death to life by God in some true sense that is much akin to regeneration) and that in some sense we receive the righteousness of Christ as our own, and based on the righteousness of Christ, we are justified (even if it is understood as being received through union and not by imputation, or perhaps that Christ’s active obedience is credited/imputed to us, but this is only possible and only occurs through our union with Christ, which I think I would agree with and John Murray would affirm). Am I on the right track here? In the interview you said that someone who outright denied justification by faith alone, and really lived by that denial and thus believed in justification by something in addition to faith/Christ’s righteousness, would not be someone you could share Christian fellowship with. So I would assume you would not sign a joint statement with those whom you did not consider to be brothers in Christ. Hence my conclusion that you must believe that those who do not see regeneration as our Confession does still believe in something that amounts to essentially the same thing. And although some may not agree with the language of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness/active obedience, these men believe something that approximates to the same thing, such that they can still confess that we are justified by faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. Is this right, or am I completely missing this?

Thomas

Thomas, yes, you are generally on the right track. Confusion over something like regeneration is not the same thing as a straight-up-the-middle repudiation of regeneration.