Not Every Letter Agrees . . .

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Balsa Wood

As one who works at the organization that built Solar Probe (and knows many of the good people who built it; yes it is audacious!), I very much liked your reference. And I do expect there will be some people who speak up about what happened in St Louis. We might not be the big and famous voices, but hopefully we will be faithful.

David

David, let’s hope so.


I appreciate your coverage of the Revoice conference, but do you know if anyone got in to report on what actually happened there? My understanding is that a person like you would not have been allowed to attend, so we won’t get to know all of what was said.

Ray

Ray, correct. My understanding is that people who had been vocal in opposition were uninvited, and not allowed to come. But I do know that there were some critical reporters there, and that information from that source should be coming out shortly. In addition, I understand that there are some official video now posted.


Well, “we” started with: “Our Balsa Wood Heat Shield.” Then “we” ended with: “They have built their heat shield out of reinforced balsa wood, and they have used tissue paper for the tiles, which they have lacquered on with pine sap. They are ready for the journey.” I like where “we” ended! ; – )

Jason

Jason, yes. Some of us didn’t like how it looked and got off.


Thank you. Sincerely.

Ed

Ed, you are most welcome.


Your latest piece on Revoice was excellent, but I want to take issue with your statement that, “Most of the church is normal. They are not sexually perverted.” I am a member of a PCA church, and I would submit that your analysis is correct only when it comes to the leadership of the church. Our pastors and elders are usually sexually normal, but inexcusably cowardly, just as you said. But I think your observation is extraordinarily wide of the mark when it comes to the actual members of the church. In my own church, many of our members toe the line in public, but once they are in private, they reveal their true hearts. We have many folks who pretend to be orthodox in the pews, but in their living rooms they have bragged about porn use (“it’s healthy for marriage”), abortion (“it’s a woman’s basic right”), and same sex relationships (“they’re a great form of sexual expression when life gets boring”). I do not believe this problem is isolated. It exists across the entire orthodox, conservative church. Even as a post-millennial, I have to admit that it appears that the majority of the people in our pews are wolves, and they are waiting for the opportunity to shed their sheepskins and devour the church. With all due respect, as you continue to treat these issues, I believe you are going to have to do better than, “Most of the church is normal. They are not sexually perverted.” I believe this is backwards: most of the church is sexually perverted. With that being said, I thank you for your faithful and consistent writing in these areas. It has been a lifeline of sanity. I hope that you will be able to address this issue of widespread apostasy-in-waiting as you continue to write on these subjects.

Drew

Drew, thanks for your perspective. I don’t doubt your experience, but it has not been the same as mine. Perhaps there are regional (as opposed to denominational) variations. That said, I don’t doubt there are places where “the people love to have it so.”


Susan Pevensie Lives!

Thank you for this! I had never quite resolved the question about Susan Pevensie and Narnia, but you have now closed the matter for me. Susan will be in Narnia . . .

Mary

Mary, you bet.


I thoroughly enjoyed this post, and emailed it to my family as my Dad read the Chronicles to us when we were wee kids. I agree that the inclusion of Emeth and the exclusion of Susan have always been frustrating for me. Particularly the inclusion of Emeth—which definitely deserves another post from you (what kind of pseudo-universalism was Lewis getting at?) One question for you: Is the Cair Paravel in Lewis’s heaven the same Cair Paravel “of the Four Thrones” that it was in the time of the White Witch and book #2? Because it seems that Cair Paravel of the Four Thrones eventually became Cair Paravel “of the One Throne” when Caspian, Rilian, etc. reigned on it. If Cair Paravel was Cair Paravel of the Four Thrones for only a short time in the shadow lands (with respect to all the years in between books 3 and 4), what makes you think that it would remain Cair Paravel of the Four Thrones for eternity in the ultra-real realm? I will say: “Once a Queen of Narnia, always a queen of Narnia” remains a convincing argument.

Daniel

Daniel, I believe it remains Cair “of the four thrones” throughout, in the same way that men who were not David were able to sit on David’s throne. When the four children come back in Prince Caspian, even though their task is to put Caspian on the throne, they do so having resumed their former ranks. They do so as kings and queens.’


“There are two things that really bother evangelical friends of Narnia, and they both show up in The Last Battle. One of them is the presence of Emeth in Aslan’s country.” I disagree that it bothers “evangelicals.” It bothers a certain type of person who grew up in an inward-focused church community that see Christianity as the saving force rather than Christ himself. “What I would like to do here is address the troublesome absence of Susan from Aslan’s country. What does it mean?” It means she is not dead yet.

DB

DB, right. That’s the same conclusion I came to in my article. She’s not dead yet. And amazingly, I came to this conclusion despite being the kind of evangelical that believes in salvation through inward-focus instead of through Christ. Just lucky, I guess.


What the Ornithologist Knows

What the Ornithologist Knows: You mention birds but don’t call females chicks or hens (succulent reference) in this article. All the work to set it up, and no payoff? Are you going to write a satirical book on “thought felonies?” I’m all for that. bête noire? Can we stay away from the French and go with German or a language more lovely in the ear? “Attraction is not impurity”—hello, Revoice? How many steps away from the devastation do we need to be to be far enough away from the potential? How close to the blast zone is too close? Again, AB may not have grown up with brothers, or have some general concept of “locker room” talk. The Danger Zone for guys is much earlier in the process than she realizes, by Glorious Design. If one recognizes these sins to be “devastating,” wouldn’t one encourage investing energy in the prevention of such sins? The Shy-er males require a few “encouraging signals” from females (aka flirtation). These things belong in group settings, as we’ve discussed previously and don’t include dudes holding doors open, offering a hand up or down steps, etc. Let’s get serious, what’s in bounds and what’s out of bounds? Yes, it’s different if you’re married, or not, or at the workplace, or at the grocery store or the State Fair or the town square. Affection is fine, in and of itself. But where are the guardrails against the devastation that has been foretold?

Ron

Ron, you seriously think German is more euphonic than French?


You are right as always, as my own personal experience attests. Too late, I saw how naive I had been in a “just friends” relationship with a Christian female. I was single, not attracted, too dumb to see her interpretation of the dinner date, blind-sided when, upon learning I had no romantic inclinations, she never spoke to me again. Open conversation drove the friendship. I saw a nice chat, she saw more. (If only we men had better social training.) Fast forward years ahead, my wife and I, enjoying supper with married friends. If the conversation is lively, driven by his wife and me, I feel comfortable so long as the quieter spouses also have lines, and the topic shifts to something less invigorating within an certain limit: a limit corresponding to roughly half my jealousy’s simmering point if it were lively banter between my wife and him. No need to be weird, just not naive.

Douglas

Douglas, thanks. I am afraid that many have learned the hard way, as you did.


Really appreciate your going through Bird’s book like this. Extreme charity being offered.

Ian

Ian, thanks.


Re: Stereotypical Manners Is there no balm in Gilead? Am I the only one who sees the fairly obvious puzzle piece that is missing from this endless conundrum? As a woman who has spent her life in the labyrinth of evangelical attempts to figure out what to do with godly, eager, and winsome women, I have personal stories that range from the awkward to the terrifying to the hilarious which support both Byrd’s and your positions, sometimes simultaneously. Why? Because we’re dealing with an unsolvable puzzle for which no rules, or lack thereof, are adequate. What we need is not a ratified code of interpersonal behaviors, but Humility. Particularly from men. At the end of your post, you are hitting the nail on the head. While women are weak in many ways that men by nature are less so, men have this particular weakness that women do not, at least not equivalently. We just are not as relentlessly and constantly beset by such an outrageously destructive temptation as men are in their sexuality. Many of us are frequently tempted by chocolate, by gossip, by self-focus. Dangerous, for sure, even damnable. But not the stuff by which illegitimate humans are created, and two souls become one. Not daily. Not several times a day. Not all day. Not usually. Wow, by your own admission, and as I’ve learned in marriage, probably the thing is not even really within our comprehension. So isn’t it amazing then that our feminine experience, and I believe I am concurring with what Ms. Byrd and many other women are trying to express, is that we are treated as if we are the problem? Hmmm. What do we call the unwashed man who treads through the kitchen where the lady’s baking bread every time he mucks out the barn to complain, “Why does it always stink in here?” (Some of us call that “marriage.” Ha ha) But really, what do you call it when someone with a self-destructive, addictive compulsion pretends someone else is their issue? An offensive description, to be sure. But is it unfair? Your tone is bold, as you honestly describe the battle with the devil over lust. But in the purview of history, have you not only begun to be honest? Are you really so very bold, or is honesty and humility in regards to male sexuality just that foreign in Christendom, you know, apart from condemnations of the pagans? Believe me, I am not looking for sordid, recurrent, articulated confessions, or a community of male consternation and approbation, as we see in the world these days. Nor am I asking to for women be treated like Beatrices, with errant imaginations of feminine virtue. I am just saying that what is called for is men who know themselves, because they know their God. Gospel men. Men who know their own sick hearts are what they are guarding against, not their sister in Christ. Men who call a spade a spade, and whose doctrine of utter depravity has beautifully apparent application in real-deal holyfield humility. These men would know, without a rulebook, how to treat women. By the Spirit. I know, “by the Spirit,” doesn’t count as an answer in evangelicalism these days. The Bible is so outdated. Esther was attended by eunuchs. Not because she was so vile, so stupid, so dangerous, but because she was so valuable. Of all the challenges she suffered in her story, I doubt this sexless boundary offended her. Women generally speaking respond very well to being treated with sacred honor and dignity, as highly valuable treasure to be guarded. (Seen any princess movies lately?) The principle in Esther is not that we should castrate the church’s men (which I believe you sense as the hidden threat lurking behind these initial measures that call for loosening borders between the sexes), but that men who have been dealt with honestly, both in the depths of their capacity and the profound value in the vault, are the safest and most trustworthy guards. And there is such a thing as trust. But it has to be gained in the context of honesty, which gospel people should interpret: brutal self-honesty. Humility would take this issue from being a chain of shame and lonely disappointment around the church’s loveliest necks, where it does not belong, and make it instead for women a dignified robe of protection and provision. As for the heavy burden of not-yet-fully-sanctified male sexuality, for which the men of God have all my empathy, support and encouragement (and I think I speak for many women), the gospel provides sufficient power and relief for those who actually Do and Must carry it—men. The battle must be fought, surely, but with these wishy-washy Christian cowardly deflections onto women, well, it’s no wonder this battle for purity is being lost by the evangelical church wholesale. The Pence rule is great, but what’s it going to do for the 65% of evangelical men who are watching porn? It’s like bickering over dress code in the Pennsylvania munitions plant instead of planning for D-Day. Why isn’t the main thing the main thing? There’s so much more to say, but I’ve already tried to fit too much into a little comment, so I’ll just return to my first question. Why isn’t all this obvious?

Suzanna

Suzanna, thanks for the sanctified and on-point rant. I confess that I find that your assessment of the undesirability of the rules/no rules option has certain attractions. So first, I agree with you that women ought not to be blamed for the men’s problems—always excepting Tiffany, who dresses like a sale at Penney’s, which is to say, 30 percent off. But second, and this is something I am going to be getting to in future installments of my review of Byrd’s book, I believe that when men are alone with men, talking about these things, there is a very accurate understanding of where the problems actually are. So communication across the sexes is difficult, not because the men are incapable of being honest with themselves, but because frank discussion would be socially disruptive. Men are often not fully honest with women because they don’t want the women to be angry with them, as they frequently would be. More on this to come.


Essential Oils

Plodcast episode essential oils: Hey, I love so much of what you do, especially your family book series. I just listened to the Plodcast episode about essential oils, and I think you should redo it. I really agree with you that there is a big spiritual problem going on with essential oils. I think so many Christians treat them like magical cure all potions. But you sounded to me like you don’t know anything about essential oils. If I were a proponent of them I would easily disregard what you had to say because it didn’t seem like you were speaking to the claims people make about health benefits. If there are people out there selling forgiveness, it is much more self-evident that that is wrong (as a Christian). More dangerous I think is the worship of them for their supposed health benefits and mood modification. Please research this and speak to this problem, because I suspect your podcast seemed like you set up a straw man.

Amanda

Amanda, not a straw man at all. Here is an example of an oil called Forgive.


Different Subject . . .

Random question. What do you think of John Piper writing additional verses to Great is Thy Faithfulness. The song is in the public domain. But in the spirit of the law, I tend to think of it as venturing into the area of artistic theft. Chris Tomlin is a perpetual offender in this area. What say ye?

Roger

Roger, there is a long history of this in the church, and I don’t have an objection if the additional verses are actually an improvement. But a lyricist should walk carefully if he is modifying a well-known and well-loved hymn.


Wives Leaving

I think Ken is right about the “Wives Leaving” article. #1 Your scenario did not give any biblically just grounds for her to leave. Hard man to live with? Maybe so, but such was also Jonathan Edwards according to Ms. Dodd. Man a hypocrite and tyrant? Ok, I can sympathize, but he did not want the marriage to end (“stay with unbelieving spouse if he wants you—maybe you will be the instrument God uses for his salvation”). #2 It does not matter that the witnesses might not be believed. If they were witnesses and willing to testify then this wife has a duty to supply the witnesses and attempt to seek justice (and if proven, sanctions for the husband). Just to run away is not appropriate. This might be hard for her but if things are as bad as you describe then it is doable and it is the check and balance to keep the “frivorces” from happening. #3 It would have been better to, instead of seemingly giving out blank checks for leaving, attack the reason why your scenario would have gotten to this stage in the first place. You say that the kids were grown (btw: quite convenient and makes the whole leaving much easier) which indicates that the marriage was one of quite a long time with the behavior old as well. So, why did this woman put up with this for so long? What did she not do that she could have done to bring the truth to light before now? Why did she not do this? (loss of reputation/status/income = pride? fear? etc.) How does a wife biblically point out sin in her husband’s life and still follow her admonitions of respectfulness and submission? I am not saying that she is at fault for his behavior, but if his behavior was so egregious then there would have been someone else that would have also been affected and know about it. It is unbelievable to say that no one else was affected or knew—therefore, the question remains: What do wives do in the very early stages to prevent the need to ever leave? How do they get help that either brings the husband to repentance or proves his hypocrisy? (though scripturally, even the pagan husband is not to be left without biblical cause) Why not educate and admonish women in how to biblically deal with the problem early (while still following all the other commands to wives), instead of to run from it later. In addition, I did appreciate your indication (though subtle) that should the husband repent of his behavior that then the wife should return to him. I expect that if you had not been so subtle about it then your cheerleaders for this pro-leaving stance might have been a little less than thrilled. However, it has been my real-world experience that after such a breech (leaving) has been initiated (esp. if children were also taken) that returning—even after proven true repentance—is harder than the initial leaving.

BJ

BJ, thanks for the feedback. Having the luxury of making the scenario up, I was able to be fully satisfied in my mind that for her relatives to welcome her were she to run would be an appropriate thing to do. But my whole point about the runaway slave law is that it can be appropriate to welcome someone who should not have left. That remains a possibility also. And one last thing. These letters are going to be collected in a miscellany about marriage, and there will be other letters that address the other possibilities. I really want to cover the waterfront, and there will be one that applies 1 Peter 3 and the hard reality that “despite the advice of everyone, you married him.”


What do you make of the role reversal between Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7. Jesus was asked about a husband divorcing his wife, and Paul addresses a wife departing from her husband. Is there any significance to this?

Ty

Ty, I think there is some significance because men and women are not interchangeable. But in the gospel of Mark, Jesus talks about a woman divorcing her husband. The curious thing there, which I need to develop further, is that when a man divorces his wife in an ungodly way, he is forcing her to be “adulterated.” When he divorces his wife that way, and marries another, he commits adultery. In Mark, when a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. But Scripture says nothing about the husband who was divorced.


Some Housekeeping

Three random questions not connected to any particular post, but related to the Lord’s Supper. 1.) You used to post your homilies for the weekly Supper. Where can I find those now? Do you still post them anywhere? 2.) I know you use only wine in your services. What type of wine do you use? Any particular reason why? 3.) What advice would you give a minister who wants to shift his church from using grape juice to wine? Thanks,

BJ

BJ, our church recently called Toby Sumpter to serve as a minister with us, and he is currently doing the initial exhortation and homily with the Supper. He posts them at his blog. As we settle into our new rhythm and schedule, there will be times when I am doing the surrounding service, and I will post those pieces as I used to.

On the wine question, we use grocery store red wine, and with no particular theology associated with it. As you make the transition, I would urge you to go slowly, and to prep the congregation by teaching on it carefully beforehand.


Honest question time, not just here to make a statement that I hope gets posted publicly. I’m an elder at my church. We are a wee little gathering-50 or so regular attendees. We all know each other’s business, and we all interact as a tight-knit community. As a functioning community/family the full range of topics come up during conversation. My problem—as it’s been pointed out to me by several women—is that I take a stance on political issues rather than talk about how I “feel” about them. I say “my problem” because it has a way of causing problems, or rather hurt feelings. Now a family is leaving our congregation because of this. I’ve learned to stay away from condemning others for their opinion, blurting out that someone is wrong, or asserting that I have to be right. Heck, I don’t even have a FB page! I don’t stand on my Christian freedom to say whatever I want, but if someone solicits my opinion I’ll share it freely. And in doing so I usually project some sort of confidence in my opinion. Now before you lump me into that young Calvinist stone-throwing camp, I don’t think the label fits me. I’m very aware of God’s call on me to be gentle with the flock, to be forbearing with them, and to work with varying levels of sanctification (as well as plead with others to work with my low-level of sanctification). But if someone asks me my opinion about Trayvon Martin, Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, the prison system, Trump, feminism etc. I’m happy to share my thoughts. I value a good debate: if you don’t agree with me show me where I’m wrong. But now a family is leaving our church because they disagree with me. If I wasn’t an elder they’d stay, but since I’m an elder they (obviously!) can’t sit under my authority. As one who has some unpopular political beliefs how have you experienced this same thing? How have you dealt with it? How would you recommend I deal with it? How do you seek to communicate truth no matter what realm it is in? From the pulpit, from your blog, in your books? What if you have a member that is a passionate liberal who wants to organize other church members to protest the Kavanaugh nomination (or some such other policy you agree with), would you confront them? I think that if it were a theological matter the family at my church disagreed with me about, they would be much more hesitant to leave. I think that because most members don’t want to get into a theological debate with their pastors, but when it comes to politics that’s open for disagreement because no one is an authority (besides whoever is the one doing the condemning of course . . .) Thoughts?

Tim

Tim, you don’t want a church community where topics like this are off-limits. We have to be able to talk about them. And we have to be able to bring reason to bear on them, and not just feelings. Rather than accept a situation of enforced silence, or an arena where feelings rule, it would be better for a family to leave the church. But with that said, there are some things for you to check. Pray to find someone who shares your views, who is open about them, and who doesn’t get into the kind of trouble you do. Ask them for pointers. Ask them to critique your manners. Learn how, when someone brings up a topic, to sound out how willing they are to hear you out before you say anything. “What do you think?” “Are you sure you want to know?” And last, make sure your congregation understands that the position of the session is represented by those things they have discussed and voted on, and not by what one member of the session may have said at the potluck.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
73 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kyriosity
kyriosity
5 years ago

BJ and anyone else missing Doug’s communion meditations — You can also get a fix here: http://canonpress.com/devotional.

ron
ron
5 years ago

Doug, no, German is not more audibly pleasing than French.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JtnEUPvpus

Robert
Robert
5 years ago
Reply to  ron

Deutsch ist Ein Schoene Sprachen. German is a beautiful language. At least with German, you see it, you say it. Not so with French. Zum Alors. La Francais est tres dificile apprendre.

-BJ-
-BJ-
5 years ago

Too many BJs on this board. The first one is not me. The second one is. In case anyone cares.

kyriosity
kyriosity
5 years ago
Reply to  -BJ-

This is why I keep submitting letters as Kyriosity. There are other Valeries. If more Kyriosities show up here, I will have to smack them down.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

Discretion is the better part of Valerie.

kyriosity
kyriosity
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

You gotta know I’ve used that line myself!

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago

I’ve been trying to square Deuteronomy 23:15 as you interpret it and what we know about the institution of slavery in the nation of Israel. You have claimed a no questions asked acceptance of flight from slavery and that just can’t be the case. Slavery was not a voluntary condition. Slaves were prisoners of war or sold into slavery for debts. Such an interpretation contradicts several laws including contract and restitution laws. Why would Jubilee even exist? What would be the result of allowing the populace of a captured Canaanite city state to go free and settle anywhere they wanted… Read more »

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

If slaves had a right under the law to flee their masters then there would simply have been no slavery. The Israelite court system and potential owners would not have created or entered into such a tenuous arrangement. I’m the last guy to present the god of Abraham and Isaac as a humanitarian but what this would have meant is more enemies put to the sword, more infanticide, starvation, and debts settled through raiding and killings. Similarly, if the institution of marriage (not just formal marriage that may be continued in name only but actual marriage) may be unilaterally dissolved… Read more »

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

Barnabas,

“If slaves had a right under the law to flee their masters then there would simply have been no slavery. ”

I’m not sure that’s right. Mosaic law has provisions for voluntary slavery under the Jubilee laws, which implies the thing was much more stable, and less coercive, than you seem to think. Surely the right to run away was tempered by a system in which substantial numbers volunteered to be slaves in perpetuity?

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

I wonder if the difficulties you point out – entire Canaanite cities going free in the Promised Land, et cetera – would be somewhat resolved if we understood the Right to Run Away as applying only to Israelites who were reduced to servitude? There is some precedent in the Law for a distinction between “neighbors” and “foreigners and sojourners”.

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

Farinata,

Yes, the Law has many distinctions between foreigners and countrymen. One example allows loan interest to only be charged to foreigners. This is found just four verses later in Deut. 23:19.

If, as I understand it, the “Right to Run Away” applied only to slaves of foreign masters, the possibility of large Canaanite populations removing themselves from slavery to the Jews no longer exists. It would also be consistent with the fact that the Jubilee laws applied only to Jewish slaves, not to foreign slaves.

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

Is the consent of the slave an ongoing issue or has that ship sailed after the awl pierces the ear? It’s an academic question that need not concern me unless someone is trying to
apply it in the present day.

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

I am not sure. But it certainly complicates the picture of OT slavery – it isn’t as if all slaves were kept in chains. If there was a voluntary element to the slave-master relationship, then the slave’s consent becomes relevant – and possible to withdraw.

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

Farinata,

Every commentary I looked at regarding this issue seemed to consider that Deut. 23:15 referred only to slaves who fled from their foreign masters to Israel. If Jewish slaves were able to leave their master at will, why would you need the Jubilee laws to free slaves?

If the verse applies only to slaves of foreign masters, this weakens Doug’s argument further as the principle did not apply universally, but in specific situations.

I question that “substantial numbers volunteered to be slaves in perpetuity”. In light of the Jubilee laws, it does not seem to be the original intent.

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

I think your argument is plausible – I’d like to see Doug show his work here as well. But I don’t think it is necessary, or that a kind of slavery in which some slaves were permitted to flee in some circumstances is self-contradictory.

I use substantial to mean “it was popular enough that there had to be specific rules about it in the law”. The volunteer slaves were the exception to the jubilee laws, not a contradiction of them.

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

Farinata, Doug is proclaiming, based on his inference of a principle from Deut. 23:15, that a wife can flee her husband according to her own perception of her treatment. If the fleeing of slaves was, in fact, regulated rather than self-determined, then it seems reasonable that a wife leaving her husband would also be regulated. I have the perception that most of the Jews who were slaves were voluntary temporary  slaves due to some disastrous cause and they were often able to resume a free life at Jubilee. However, there were some who were content to remain slaves and they… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

I agree that Doug needs to spend some time on his exegesis. Commentators seem to either take the position that this refers to slaves of the caananites (Henry, Wesley, many others), which i agree makes the most sense, especially given verse 16, or they take it to be a summary of a greater body of law (Calvin’s position). Doug’s apparent position seems untenable. However, there still may be applications for a woman fleeing bad situations; just not in the simple way presented. The big change in the present isnt that women can now flee a husband, it is that there… Read more »

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I’ve focused on the Deuteronomy passage but Dalrock and others have pointed out serious problems with the exegesis of other verses. This is the biggest Wilson blunder since he declared that women may not be held legally responsible for the killing of their unborn children. There seems to be a pattern emerging that indicates a serious blind spot when it comes to 51% of the population.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

I think Doug’s use if 1 Cor 7 needs further expounding. Much seems to hang on the word should in the ESV, which is must in other versions and rendered as “let not” in the KJV. I dont have time right now to run this down in Greek, but Doug is hanging a lot on this phrase. It would be great if he could be brought into dialog on the point. Unfortunately, Dalrock is not an honest interlocutor and if I were Wilson I would also be reticent to engage.

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Sure, Doug Wilson is understandably concerned about the well-being of a vulnerable and historically downtrodden group of people and also concerned that the Christian Church be seen as loving and good while Dalrock is a deliberately controversial and contentious character with a predictably small platform who seems to be out to flame people who are trying to do good and who is giving Christians a bad name in the process. Dalrock unfairly paints Wilson as a coward caving to cultural pressures. Doug Wilson is under no obligation to respond to Dalrock’s criticism. Of course, the organizers of the Revoice conference… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

Barnie,

If you want to try to spin my concerns about Dalrock into a persecution narrative be my guest. But it bears no relationship to the content of my post (or thought).

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Call it what you like, it’s the same dynamic.

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

You should give Dalrock credit. He’s there defending what he writes against all comers day in and day out in the comments. As a result his writing and his thinking are sharp. Wilson doesn’t dare to enter that kind of forum. It’s not because Dalrock is dishonest, it’s because he’s SO honest that he frequently treads on taboos that Wilson can’t afford to broach.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

Barnie, I think you misunderstand my concern. I stated that I don’t think Dalrock is an honest interlocutor, meaning i don’t think he is arguing in good faith. It has nothing to do with the content of his beliefs or the positions he takes. For instance in this post: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/14/dont-chase-the-misdirection/ He mangles Wilson beyond all recognition. I’m critical of Wilson’s reasoning and exegesis but i’m not going to write psychobabble about his true motives nor give extremely uncharitable summaries of his views. If you want to interact with someone and shed light rather than heat, a little charity goes a… Read more »

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

If you think Wilson has been treated unfairly you could have it out with Dalrock (or Wilson could) but I don’t think you want to try to make that case. What you really mean is that Dalrock owes Wilson some false but face-saving scenario. The Bible does make provision for face-saving, “go to him privately” but this travesty was presented in one public forum and addressed in others. It is what it is. “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it.”

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

Barnie, Now you are pulling a Cathy Newman routine just like Dalrock. “What you really mean” – what I mean is what i wrote, no need to dig deep into my subconscious motivations. This sort of rhetoric makes a discussion impossible. There is no point in arguing with someone if they already know what you are getting at – deep down inside. Here is Dalrock on Wilson: “It could be that Wilson is just really, really bad at explaining Scripture. If so, he needs to immediately find a new line of work. But I don’t think Wilson is incompetent. I… Read more »

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Analysis of rhetoric is not voodoo. I think I can refer you to some instructional materials from Canon Press. A fictional sad letter about abuse and a framing of a wife as a runaway slave may serve the author’s purpose in more than one way but are certainly emotionally laden and serve a rhetorical function.
Discussion of the personal and sociological factors that would a lead a pastor with decades of experience to twist several passages of scripture in novel ways is going to be somewhat speculative but still necessary.

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

The things Jordan Peterson was saying were true. If they had been false then it would be reasonable to address his motivations and his mental state.

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

demo,

Doug has entered into some dialog with Dominic Bnonn Tennant, responding to Bnonn’s article Straddling the Stallion and the Mare. It is my opinion that Wilson, as he is wont to do, was too enthralled with his made-up scenario and wordsmithing to be careful with his theology. I believe that puts me somewhere between Dalrock and Bnonn in this instance.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

Thanks OKR, I skimmed Tenant’s posts and they are pretty even-handed, though he makes a couple of tangential claims that I would challenge (such as saying Jesus broke the law) and leaves in place Doug’s reading of Deut 23. This paragraph is especially apropos: “This raises the point of confusion, because Doug appears to be sending mixed messages here himself. (This is, unfortunately, a feature of his writing often commented on; his clarifications seem to commit him to divergent positions, and he ends up looking like he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. I don’t believe that’s his… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

demo,

My experience with pastors suggests that a great many of them are overly enamored with hearing themselves speak. The resulting excess of words makes it simple to lose track of what they have said and thus be inconsistent in their statements. It is then easy for the listener to wonder what they truly believe. This seems to be true in Doug’s case, except it is written words, rather than spoken ones.

OKRickety
OKRickety
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

demo, are you considering researching the “let not/should/….” question? I would be interested in what you think.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

OKR, I looked into it briefly. Like many greek constructions it doesnt have words that would be necessary in english. The phrase in question is something like “wife from husband not separate (depart, vacate)” and there is no imperarive, the negative is used simply to modify the verb “to separate”. The imperative is provided on the earlier clause “I charge” or “I command.” Without the parallel statement in 7:11 (husband wife not leave) 7:10 wouldnt appear to be specific to the wife. Wife from husband not separate could be read as violated by either party leaving. Many good commentators point… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 years ago

If the song is in the public domain, the spirit of WHAT law? There is no moral law that I’m aware of that impinges on the writing of additional verses to poems, providing one is not trying to take credit for someone else’s work. What am I missing?

Actually, I don’t think there’s even a civil law against writing additional verses to copyrighted poems, provided you don’t republish the original verses without proper permission and attribution. Or am I wrong about that?

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, it’s not obviously a moral question, but it is pretty shabby way to operate. It confuses the audience, it produces monstrosities, and it’s lazy. Most people, presented with a poem, book, or other such artefact, do not assume it was produced by a committee – the natural assumption is that the thing is an organic whole, and any interpretation depends on this assumption. To find meaning in something, it must first be a thing – the expression of some unified idea. If a poem consists of four verses written in 1870, then three more added in in the 1980s,… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

That sounds like a lot of personal preference, plus perhaps some valid consideration for the tendency of people to make unwarranted assumptions about the things they read or sing, and their laziness in failing to note clearly marked attributions. I guess there’s laziness everywhere. There is probably some good advice in there to consider. None of it sounds like a violation of a moral law. So I guess we agree on that much. Why does the cumulative contribution of the church over time necessarily distort and ruin a hymn? Are all new additions to established human works of value necessarily… Read more »

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, The point is not that additions are ugly, it is that they are additions, and thus change the character of that to which they have been added. There is a kind of violation. In the case of a great painting or a sculpture I trust this is evident: the fellow who buys a chisel and puts his own stamp on a Michelangelo is generally not doing posterity a favor. But even if the new fellow is a great sculptor as well, even if his emendation strikes us as an improvement, my point is that he’s destroyed the unity of… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Farinata

I think I can somewhat agree.

But i think all this is irrelevant to the original point.

You would prefer this not be done, for arguably good reasons.

It has nothing to do with the original point, which is that somehow doing so violates the “spirit” of copyright law, the eighth commandment, or something along those lines. Whatever is going on, it just isn’t that.

Farinata
Farinata
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane,

Jill gets what I’m saying pretty well. The connection between my views and your question about “the spirit of copyright law” is the claim that work of art has a kind of organic unity that can be violated in copies as well as in the original. The harm is less if I only edit a print of Botticcelli, rather than scribbling on the original they keep in Florence, but changing up even the small, disposable version conveys a kind of disrespect.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, I don’t quite see where you’re coming from. Or if I do, it seems a very odd position for a Christian to come to. I would expect Biblical Christians to have the *most* acute awareness of the sanctity of ownership of intellectual product. After all, we hold sacred a book which ends with a striking condemnation to anyone who ever decides to add anything to it (Rev 22:18). If I build a yard; do all the landscaping myself, do some gardening, put together a mosaic, make a BBQ pit, put in all the time and effort and money to… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I think that only applies if we have reason to believe the original author is/would be more concerned about protecting his intellectual property than creating music to be sung in worship. If there is no reason to expect this concern exists, then I cannot see how the spirit of anything is being violated by adding to it. I think hymns are usually of a different character from many other written works, in this sense. IMO hymns in general, particularly those written by someone for whom credit is now wholly irrelevant or who made no attempt to secure it, fall… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

“I think that only applies if we have reason to believe the original author is/would be more concerned about protecting his intellectual property than creating music to be sung in worship” Why do you think this specifically? It seems odd to me that intellectual property would be the only kind of property where the burden is on the owner to make certain that other people know they aren’t supposed to play with it as though it were theirs. Are there any other kinds of ownership to you that behave this way? ” IMO hymns in general, particularly those written by… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Intellectual property is only “property” through analogy. It isnt a concrete natural category. If I take something someone said or wrote and pass it off as my own i am guilty of lying, not theft.

It is good and right that we have created a legal category of intellectual property, but it is not a natural institution. Also, i think the copyright act of 1790 was about right with 14 years of copyright, renewable for another 14 years, rather than the monstrosity we have today.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

“Intellectual property is only “property” through analogy. It isnt a concrete natural category. ” Says who? This isn’t a case being made, this is just a conclusion. If you aren’t going to take the steps necessary to actually show this to be the case, I can just say “Yes it is”, and I’ve provided an argument exactly to the equal of your own. “It is good and right that we have created a legal category of intellectual property” Why? According to you, it isn’t actually property. If that’s the case, it should naturally be considered immoral to force under penalty… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I wrote a reply but the spam filter must have eaten it because of my links. Im not really interested in hashing out something that is common knowledge, but a simply history investigation should suffice. The first time there was anything similar to an understanding of intellectual property in Christendom was in 1620 in England when something vaguely similar to a patent system was developed. Nothing similar to copyright was thought of until 1710. Neither inventions or writings were considered “property” (as abstract from the articles themselves, obviously the invented items and the artifact of a book were property)… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, does it help to think of something like a stained glass window rather than a hymn? Think of the Matisse chapel in Vence. If a modern stained glass artist decided to incorporate a new panel forming part of the whole series in order to present a very good theme that apparently didn’t occur to Matisse, would you see that as legitimate? I wouldn’t, any more than I would like to have someone write an additional chapter to “Pride and Prejudice”, get it printed as part of the original novel, and have it presented to a class of English students.… Read more »

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

When Thomas Cranmer made the first version of the Book of Common Prayer, he based it on the medieval latin sarum rite, and added som content from John Chrysostoms Divine Liturgy (which in itself was based on earlier liturgies), the continental reformers and things he made up himself. So he was clearly guilty of this. But what he made of it was also very, very beautiful.

Nathan James
5 years ago

Suzanna said, “The Pence rule is great, but what’s it going to do for the 65% of evangelical men who are watching porn? It’s like bickering over dress code in the Pennsylvania munitions plant instead of planning for D-Day.” The analogy is wide of the mark. I’d suggest that disparaging the Pence rule is more like recommending that we not evacuate the walking wounded during a battle currently producing 65% casualties at the front. Or the Pence rule could be compared to posting sentries, which is good practice regardless of whether you’ve been winning or losing recently. Maybe the best… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

I think one could also argue that people who have trouble resisting the temptation to view pornography might well benefit from lessening their exposure to sexual temptation in real life!

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

Why should people impose a two-drink limit on themselves if they feel the need? What’s that going to do for all the out of control alcoholics who can’t get by without five drinks a day?

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

I feel like too much emphasis is being put on the actual sexual conduct in the Pence rule, rather than what is arguably of even greater benefit, avoiding the appearance of sexual conduct. If I as a man never have a one on one dinner with another woman, my wife never has to hear rumors of my unfaithfulness. In the age of #MeToo, it’s just a good rule to have for personal liability.

JohnM
JohnM
5 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Yes, in fact I have always assumed the Pence Rule, and the Billy Graham rule, is as least as much about avoiding appearance or accusation as it is about a man being worried what he might really do.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
5 years ago

“you seriously think German is more euphonic than French?”

Game. Set. Match.

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

German gets a raw deal. If we in our formative years had seen movies with German lovers crooning to each other, and a French-speaking Hitler bellowing at the masses, we’d be better able to hear the beauty of spoken German.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

Of course, the same might be argued of the Elvish language spoken in Lothlorien and the Black Speech of Mordor…..

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

It would be a poor comparison, I think. Two fictional languages, one representing order, beauty and goodness, with a culture of noble song and story, and the other representing ugliness and evil, used only for bickering, dark magic and making evil plans; against two real languages both with several centuries-worth of great literature behind them? No, I think the English distaste for German is an acquired one. Sure, if you holler “Schmetterling!” in an aggressive way it does not evoke the butterfly. But I submit that if you shout “papillon!” in the same tone, you’ll be reminded of kids making… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

Indighost, I think you are right. I would rather listen to a table of slightly soused Frenchmen discussing soccer than an equivalent number of drink-taken and raucous Germans. I think it is true that Germans are noisier in public gatherings, and the language doesn’t lend itself to loud vocalization without the speaker sounding a bit like a Hitler caricature. “Bring mir ein Bier und drei Blutwürste auf eine Pumpernickelkruste und mach schnell” just doesn’t sound pretty. On the other hand, as you note, German crooned between two lovers is something else altogether. Think of Oscar Werner murmuring sweet nothings. And… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Now I’m thinking I might go to YouTube and look up some Schubert Lieder.

Robert
Robert
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Go online and listen to Michael Junior sing Ich Liebe DICH . I speak both German and French. I think German is prettier.

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Robert

I only speak English, a little German, and enough Spanish to ask for the bathroom. But I’ve always thought German gets a bad rap.

Daniel Fisher
Daniel Fisher
5 years ago

Roger,

I’m just curious, do you similarly object to the “when we’ve been there ten thousand years” verse of Amazing Grace for similar reasons?

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Daniel Fisher

Daniel, I’m sorry to seem to be picking on you! I’m not Roger, but I do object. I like the stanza in itself and its imagery is powerful, but it clearly doesn’t fit the rest. ‘No less days’ is a dead giveaway that this belongs in a spiritual. Even if sung to the same tune, it should be a different song.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  lndighost

I think John Newton would have been irritated by the grammar error in the last line. I don’t ever correct anyone’s grammar (unless someone asks me if something is right), and I don’t get unduly bothered by errors even in hymns. But if someone was presuming to add a verse to a poem for which I was justly famous, I would not be pleased that he or she was not, at the very least, competent in handling the mother tongue!

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Yes, I guess it can be fudged a little by singing ‘we’d’ instead of ‘we’ but it would then be at odds with the line before. I was interested to see that the verse was left out of my denomination’s new hymnal in favour of the original stanzas 4 and 5 and it’s much more cohesive.

I wonder if Newton would have seen something divinely fitting in the idea that the additional verse was composed and sung by slaves.

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Fewer vs. less as a hard distinction arose right around the time John Newton was writing Amazing Grace, FWIW. Even then, it was the expressed preference of a particular grammarian which became spun into a “rule.” Newton himself may well have written “less” in such a context.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, I agree with you. Lots of those rules came about during the Augustan era, including the tiresome ones about not splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions. But how do we get around “when we first begun”?

Jane
Jane
5 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Well, that one bugs me, too. Make it “we’d” and we’re okay, though.

lndighost
lndighost
5 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Interesting! I’ve learned something today.

Bro Steve
Bro Steve
5 years ago

Drew’s observation about the average pew-dweller reflects my personal experience among Baptists in the southeastern part of America, In the SBC, pastors tend to be •much• more conservative than a good many of their congregants. This is particularly true among the young who have embraced the idea that opposing sodomy is a form of bigotry pretty much equal to gassing Jews with Zyklon-B.

ashv
ashv
5 years ago

Re essential oils, keep in mind that almost all of the MLM essential oil companies are Mormon outfits based in Idaho and Utah.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
5 years ago
Reply to  ashv

One of the problems i have seen with essential oils is the assumption that they are natural and therefore harmless, many essential oils are quite toxic and when i hear people talk about putting them in a diffuser in their kids room it concerns me.

Urushiol is a natual plant based oil, i sure dont want it on me.

adad0
adad0
5 years ago
Reply to  ashv

….essential oils,

Snake oil by any other name!

????