All right. So there are several threads to tie together here, re: Falwell and Moore.
First I need to address the lame defense of himself that Jerry Falwell Jr. gave.
“Honored for same hypocrites who accused Jesus of being a friend of publicans and sinners to be targeting me over a decades old mag cover!”
The problems with this present themselves in an orderly row, easy to count. First, the problem was not that Jerry befriended Zacchaeus. We need more befriending of sinners, not less, Playboy models not excluded. The problem is that he endorsed him as the new Treasury secretary before Zacchaeus repented of anything, and before he returned anything that he stole. That’s a different story. Jesus told Zacchaeus to come down out of the tree, which is quite a different thing from evangelical activists climbing up the tree to hang out with him there. “Why did you climb my tree?” “Because we can’t see anything either!” Second, read the story you are in. Is God blessing this enterprise? Who chose to have the photo taken against that wall? Who decreed from before the world began that Trump’s pride at being included in a porn rag would step on this moment of evangelical photo op glory? Right. The answer is Jesus, friend of prostitutes and tax collectors. And third, it is true the magazine was published decades ago. But it was hanging on the wall of pride in a frame just a few days ago.
That said, on to Moore. Let me begin with where I can agree with my friend’s correction and input. I am happy to acknowledge that Russell Moore was far more likely to have had the SBC Trump brigade in mind than to have been thinking of someone like Francis Schaeffer. And a corollary of that is that Moore is obviously willing to mix it up with actual foes who are able to fight back, unlike Gens. Lee and Stonewall.
But he didn’t say SBC good ol’ boys, he said old guard Religious Right. So while I grant that he was likely not thinking of Francis Schaeffer, what he said still applies to Francis Schaeffer. If he had simply popped some SBC dignitaries who are disgracing themselves by supporting Trump, I would simply have applauded. But Moore didn’t do that. And Moore’s ongoing project does explicitly exclude principled conservatives, not just the trumpkins.
For example, when someone uber-responsible, like Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, took a principled and constitutional stand, Russell Moore opposed him. He said that because the law is clear (although it wasn’t) Roy Moore should step down from office, and oppose same sex mirage as a private citizen. But what happens when the law makes it clear that private citizens must now shut up?
Russell has done good work contending for religious liberty, and I do commend him as far as that goes. But he needs to recognize that religious liberty is itself a religious value, and it is a religious value consistent with some systems of thought and not with others. It is not consistent with the form of Stage IV Secularism that is currently running our country. If Roy Moore should submit to a tyrannical law as an officer, why should we all not submit to it as citizens? Why do we get to resist and the good judge doesn’t? This is not a rhetorical flourish. I am asking for an argument.
The best place for seeing the trouble in Russell Moore’s system goes back to him saying that in his view Christians could register disagreement with a same sex mirage by not attending the ceremony, but then be free to celebrate with the couple half an hour later at the reception. This is frankly schizophrenic. Something needs to be fixed here before proceeding any further.
For my friends who believe I ought not to have been so confrontational with Moore, I would really appreciate engagement on this point. This something that really needs to be answered. It is not enough to say you “disagree with Moore at some points.” Certain kinds of disagreements are “tells.” They are revelatory. For example, I am quite prepared to grant that Jerry Falwell Jr. and his wife are very nice Christian people (and I would say the same about Russell Moore). But when they do the kind of thing they have been doing with Trump, I am no longer willing to trust their political judgments. That kind of problem is too glaring.
And for Moore to give sanction to Christians attending homosexual wedding receptions is equally glaring. More glaring. It is a big problem.
Now I am not screeching here. If Moore were willing to say something like, “Yeah, I have had a chance to think that one over. I shouldn’t have said that Christians can attend same sex wedding receptions. That doesn’t add up, doesn’t make sense,” I for one would be totally willing to drop the point and go back to playing nice. But if he doesn’t let go of that point, then I will continue to believe that there is something foundationally off here.
Walk through this issue. This is a union God forbids. He forbids its formation, and He forbids its continuance. Assuming a married homosexual couple who are converted, the only option for them is divorce. “Disagreeing” only during the time of the initial ceremony is not a biblical worldview response.
If a homosexual couple lived next door, would I be willing to be friends with them? Of course. If they wanted me to watch their house while they were out of town, would I do it? Of course. If they invited us over for a birthday bbq, would we come? Of course. Jesus was a friend to sinners. The same thing goes for the Playboy model on the cover with Trump. She is getting out of prison soon for that cocaine deal, and if she lived next door, the same thing goes for her. But if the homosexual couple invited us over for a 10th anniversary celebration of their union, would I go? Of course not. They are created in the image of God. Their union is the image of something else, and must therefore be detested.
The issue of our day — as seen in the battles over photographers, florists, wedding planners, etc. — is approval, glorification, and celebration. For whatever reason, Russell Moore doesn’t have a theology that knows how to process this foundational ethical reality. That’s a problem.
I know that a number of people influenced by Moore are engaged, critical thinkers, and I know that they are doing good work. I also know that they are not RHE-lite. But I also know that participation in a gay wedding reception is something that RHE would applaud. Would she not? Can we do something about this one?
“I’ve got my differences with Moore on how he tackles various issues. But if the church is heading into the wilderness for a generation, I’m glad that he’s one of the guys helping us find a way.”
I would put it a little differently. If the church is heading into the wilderness for a generation, I am glad that Moore is with us. I am happy to fellowship with him. I’ll share my manna with him. But I don’t want him showing us the way. When it comes to issues like gay wedding receptions, reactions to the Orlando shooting, disassociation with the word evangelical, or faithful lesser magistrates defying tyranny, Moore’s reflexes are all wrong. When it comes to Trump and all, his reflexes are just fine, and I have admired what he has done.
I want men like Joshua and Caleb showing us the way in the wilderness — because they were the ones willing who were willing to fight instead of going into the wilderness in the first place. But once in the wilderness, they are the men to have.
It all comes down to covenant, doesn’t it? When religious leaders who are opposed to covenant theology and its implications for daily living based on God’s law, a mandate for the reconstruction of culture and an eschatology of victory, we should not be surprised by their aberrant views on the moral, political or civil issues of our day. Moore is being consistent with his worldview and therefore feels comfortable in his skin. Any decision we deem a compromise, his spectacles give a different view of things. It’s all about grace, love, acceptance, compassion and soul winning, the usual pietistic list… Read more »
Good point, Dave: “The lines are being drawn in bold relief and a day is coming when people will be wanting to hear the heat of truth and will no longer be listening to the lukewarmness of those tossed to and fro by the latest wave of culture.”
Thanks, Corina. Those of us who still believe (along with the thousands who are just starting to believe) in an eschatology of victory, always see these issues through kingdom glasses. No matter how bleak things look in the political sphere or cultural sphere, the promises of God’s word are where I want to invest. History has taught us over and over that God is always in control, He rarely uses big numbers and things turn around when we are weakest. It’s all about His strength, His agenda and His victory. As frail sheep, we always want to turn to men… Read more »
There are plenty of people who reject the hermeneutical gymnastics covenant theology requires who would agree with Wilson that Moore is completely wrong on this.
Well, Brent, you’ve allowed yourself two unprovable statements to make your point:
“Plenty of people” and
Covenant theology requires “hermeneutical gymnastics.”
I’m not sure what point you are making. Are you simply agreeing with Wilson or are you using the Moore controversy as a covert way of voicing your opposition to covenant theology? Unless you’re prepared to argue point, I would caution an approach that makes unsubstantiated accusations and assumes this is the majority opinion. Perhaps it best that we agree that “Moore is completely wrong.”
Excellent! This is much better. Russell needs to be confronted on his social agenda, but not denounced completely. Just like Piper needs to be confronted on his mega-multi-site-video-feed church views. When confronting men, it’s always good to point out the areas of agreement, so your readers don’t go overboard. I see it like this. I find myself defending Doug to my PCA brothers on a weekly basis. Almost all the time, these PCA brothers are trying to dismiss all of Doug’s work because of some smaller area of disagreement. I’m constantly having to say, “Yes, Doug has issues from our… Read more »
I agree with the comparison of the all-or-nothing rejection of Moore to what many often do with Doug. Because Doug himself is often unfairly castigated in that way, I expect more gracious arguments from him. However, I need help with this statement you made: “Russell needs to be confronted on his social agenda…” As a nearly 40 year old Reformed pastor, I find Moore to be a breath of fresh air against the backdrop of a lot of “old guard” Christian nationalism. What do you suspect his “agenda” to be on this front? Other than Wilson straining gnats over the… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more brother. I love and appreciate both Wilson and Moore and am very thankful for the wisdom and perspectives they provide. Coming at things from very different backgrounds and theological frameworks, disagreement on these things is not only expected but good and helpful when done the right way, with respect and humility.
Kevin, articles like ‘A White Church No More’, published in the New York Times recently, bother me a bit. It’s the kind of thing where there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with it, but its tone is one of taking broad shots at evangelical churches today for stances they may or may not have held 50 years ago. It plays into liberal conceptions of evangelicals being behind the times. Can anyone really point to an evangelical church that is racist? No, it’s a contradiction of terms. Is it possible that like the early church, the hellenist widows could be overlooked? Yes,… Read more »
The reason that Wilson’s Federal Vision has been judged a heresy by the OPC, PCA etc. is that it is seen as an attack on justification by faith alone, hardly a trivial issue. Your logic would also apply to Rome, would it not?
“Yes, Rome has issues from our perspective in those areas, but they are
not big enough to undermine all the good she is doing and saying.”
Federal Vision is a hard turn toward Rome and away from the Reformation, whether Doug Wilson sees it or not.
Stephen, Wilson’s FV has not been addressed by the PCA. I know. I’ve read our statements. Yes, the PCA report named Wilson, but no, the views condemned were not that of Wilson. Certainly, as a PCA member, it bothers me that Wilson gives his pulpit to men who have little respect for a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, but his own hermeneutic is much close to what we’ve come to expect from one who rightly handles the word of God. Besides condoning paedo-communion, can you point to something Wilson has written that would place him outside of acceptable PCA thinking? I really can’t… Read more »
How about his ecumenicism?
He and his ilk will allow riff-raff Christians like me to take communion in their denomination.
(Riff-Raff = not an official or recognized member of their or any other approved denomination.
This practice stems from their take on what it means to be a member of the Body.)
Or is this kind of practice no big deal for PCA-ers?
FV appears to be a return to sacramentalism, which is a return to Rome, a return to a form of baptismal regeneration and the idea of salvation being identified with membership in the visible church. Furthermore Wilson explicitly equates being baptized in the name of the Trinity with being a true Christian. And throw in a large measure of NPP to top it off. All this is heresy. This constitutes another gospel.
Apparently Anderson doesn’t want to represent Wilson or the FV accurately. The FV published a joint statement and profession, way back in 2007, where they clearly explain:
Unfortunately, so many people are hasty in their rush to judgment, and are carried away by their own prejudices and false accusations.
Wilson does assert that trinitarian baptism DOES place one in the covenant. I assume that is the New Covenant which is the promise of forgiveness, regeneration, the Holy Spirit, and knowing God per Eze 36 and Jer 31.
Unless, of course, Wilson is referring to some other covenant.
Anderson wrote: Wilson does assert that trinitarian baptism DOES place one in the covenant. Indeed. Baptism, like circumcision in the old covenant, is the sign of covenant entry. However, as Israel showed, simply being in covenant with God was not enough to automatically guarantee eternal glory. They actually needed to be faithful, like Abraham. God prunes fruitless branches from the covenant tree. Jesus said that the new covenant is precisely the same in that those who do not abide in the Vine are broken out. This is why we see that Anderson’s charge of baptismal regeneration is simply false. To… Read more »
So, you separate regeneration from the New Covenant. Interesting. Please clarify the basis for that from the Scriptures. It seems to me that you have invented a covenant that does not exist in the Scriptures. If I recall the Covenant God made with Abraham, it was unilateral and unconditional. And he was reckoned as righteous prior to circumcision. Since you and Wilson make the “covenant” conditional and non-salvific, either that covenant is not the New Covenant or you stand condemned by Dort as heretics. John 15:5 “the one who is abiding in Me Ὁ μένων ἐν ἐμοί is of course… Read more »
Anderson wrote: So, you separate regeneration from the New Covenant. Interesting. Please clarify the basis for that from the Scriptures. Certainly. Christ is the New Covenant Vine, and the Father is the Vinedresser: I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. — John 15:5-6 In this very passage,… Read more »
I suggest you examine the Greek, or do you think John 3:16 is a conditional also?
Clearly FV is outside historic Calvinism.
What a confused mess. If you dropped the infant baptism things would be simpler.
Anderson wrote: There is no covenant that unites one with Christ other than the New Covenant. And that Covenant is by sovereign and individual election and regeneration, not water baptism. I wanted to comment on this statement as well. I already quoted from 1 Corinthians 10: for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ This passage shows us that, even in the Old Covenant, the Rock and Root was just as much Christ as it is in the New Covenant. On what basis does Anderson argue that the Bridegroom in the Old… Read more »
You seem to have difficulty with confusing the covenant of Sinai with the New Covenant. You also confuse the visible church with the spiritual church. But them that is part of the reason FV is a heresy.
katecho,
In a recent discussion w EtR while he was wiggling out from underneath the consequences and implications of materialism, you mentioned two philosophical postitions whose names I forgot.
I think they where “Consequentialism” and “D-something”. If you remember, would you please repeat their names? I want to add them to my notes.
thx.
Hmm. Maybe deontological ethics? I’ve tried to explain to Krychek_2 that his utilitarianism (pragmatism/consequentialism) looks to the consequence of some action to determine its value, in contrast to the inherent value and virtue of the act itself, as in virtue ethics, and deontological ethics (duty). We can do something because it is the right thing to do, without having to know whether our act will ultimately result in the consequence that was most pragmatic for all. God does not require us to divine how our action, today, will play out next week, or next year, or a century from now.… Read more »
I think that was it. Consequentialism and Deontological ethics. John C. Wright wrote that a deontological ethic could be built w/o reference to God in a duty-bound ethic. I have added these words to my notes. I will fill in the definitions later. I will start an “arguments” file ….your argument– We can do something because it is the right thing to do, without having to know whether our act will ultimately result in the consequence that was most pragmatic for all. God does not require us to divine how our action, today, will play out next week, or next… Read more »
Great post, Pastor Wilson! I particularly liked the closing lines: “I want men like Joshua and Caleb showing us the way in the wilderness — because they were the ones willing who were willing to fight instead of going into the wilderness in the first place. But once in the wilderness, they are the men to have.” Why do I sense that so many of these types seem to almost rejoice at the idea of going into the Wilderness? These guys seem to urge us all to revel in our chains and the theft and corruption of our culture as… Read more »
It’s true that Moore has demonstrated many marks of weakness as a leader: He has shown himself to be undiscerning in his editorializing in newspapers that want Christians shot, opportunistic in his calls to take down the confederate flag only right after the Charleston shooting (because I guess the flag wasn’t offensive enough to our black brethren before the shooting), and pretentious in his treatment of regular ol’ Southern Baptists who have legitimate concerns about his association and co-belligerence with an ideology that wants Christians dead. But these things are only symptoms of a bigger, more fundamental problem. At the… Read more »
I’m not a part of the SBC – I’m PCA, actually – but I think you’re right about a redeeming factor in all of this, namely, the independence of SBC congregations. I suspect many will (and have already) effectively blown off Moore and the EI, and gone on about their business.
Well said, Ben.
Here’s Moore in late 2007 if you are interested in knowing what Moore thought about racial issues prior to the Charleston shooting. He doesn’t specifically address the flag here, but I think his sentiments are consistent with being generally in favor of dropping that symbol.
http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/media/audio/henry/20071024MooreSagers.mp3
The first 28 and a half minutes are by his friend Robbie Sagers. Then Moore takes over. He refers to “Ninth and O” several times. Its just the name of his church, of which he is obviously proud.
Douglas, I appreciate very much your concerns here – about Falwell, and also Moore’s endorsement of Christians at gay receptions. However, I think you fail to connect your own dots when you continue to endorse the Confederate flag, and especially to imply that it is the linchpin for so many other issues. You are definitely detracting from your own credibility on these other issues when you fail to see this speck/log(?) in your own eye.
If we granted that the Confederate flag had no other meaning than racial malice, then it would not be defensible. However, the Confederate flag has a long history in representing Southern heritage, resistance to federal subjugation, and the liberty of secession, etc. We know that this is the case, for example, because the flag has been used by progressives themselves on campaign buttons for Hillary Clinton’s first presidential run. The flag has also been used in other Democratic party campaigns and on popular television shows; all without inciting torn robes on every corner. It is only recently that the Confederate… Read more »
Yep! Put on a par with maybe not displaying photos/films of combat to a veteran with severe PTSD! Love displayed here in these scenarios – yours and mine – isn’t broad and abstract; it’s specific and personal, as I believe Brother Paul intended when he wrote these things about loving “weaker brethren.”
Katecho, “Played by the Intoleraristas” is intellectual laziness. I have been attempting to think these things through consistently – so I do resent the implication. By any objective historical measurement, the Confederate flag is *primarily* a symbol for of slavery and racial subjugation, whatever else it is. As I said recently, it is more than that, but it is, most emphatically, not less than that. I am very glad to see it come down the flagpole from the government buildings of every state, but I would affirm the right of anyone who wants to fly from their own flagpole, however… Read more »
Bradley wrote: By any objective historical measurement, the Confederate flag is *primarily* a symbol for of slavery and racial subjugation, whatever else it is. Any historical measurement? How about the regiment of blacks who fought under the Confederate flag for the South against the North? Was it objectively and historically a symbol for racial subjugation for them? Does Bradley suggest that they were fighting for racial subjugation, or did the flag have another meaning for them? Is Bradley prepared to have someone inform him that, by any objective current measurement, the rainbow symbol is *primarily* a symbol for the homosexual… Read more »
“Is Bradley prepared to have someone inform him that, by any objective current measurement, the rainbow symbol is *primarily* a symbol for the homosexual movement? If not, why not?”
Was anyone flying a rainbow flag before or apart from the homosexual movement?
“Does Bradley accept that he must surrender the Christian covenantal meaning of the rainbow because of its other associations? If not, why not?”
The meaning of the flag and the meaning of the rainbow have nothing to do with each other.
Christopher Casey wrote:
The internet says there was Thomas Müntzer, waving his rainbow flag, and the rainbow flag of the German Peasants’ war of the 16th century, but that is irrelevant to my point.
I intentionally did not limit my question to a rainbow flag, but asked regarding the rainbow symbol itself. Or is Bradley suggesting that a Confederate button or plate is okay, so long as it is not in the form of a flag?
I understand the appropriation of rainbow colored things by the gay(ect.) pride community, I don’t think it extends to rainbows themselvs though.
Christopher Casey wrote:
You mean physical rainbows, made of droplets of water vapor in the sky? Probably not. But rainbow arch shapes, like stickers in car windows and on bumpers? Sure it has. The “gay” rainbow symbol is not limited to flags. They even plastered capital buildings with rainbow lighting at night during pride month.
“But rainbow arch shapes, like stickers in car windows and on bumpers, sure it has.”
I don’t know that the arch is primarily a gay pride thing, it’s not what I would think of seeing a rainbow arch with no other context.
Wait a minute, Christopher Casey can’t be bringing context into this discussion. The whole point is that we have to ignore context, right?
After arbitrarily deciding that racial malice is the only meaning that can’t be removed from the confederate flag, ignoring context is the only option.
Katecho, please see above for my response to your rainbow remarks. As for your Black regiments fighting for the Confederate flag: are you really so historically unaware not to see the obvious slave/master coercion behind that?
Note that Bradley did not actually answer my question about the rainbow symbol. I take this to mean that he does not apply his own reasoning about *primary* objective measurement to other symbols, like the rainbow. He does not explain why his own reasoning fails in regard to the rainbow symbol.
Regarding black regiments, Bradley again assumes, without argument, that they must have all been coerced.
…are you really so historically unaware…
/popcorn
So what?
This response is completely predictable from you, ashv.
Well, I strive for consistency. So, answer the question. Is there substance here beyond just elevating one group’s hurt feelings above another’s?
“By any objective historical measurement, the Confederate flag is *primarily* a symbol for of slavery and racial subjugation, whatever else it is.”
This would be a more forcefull argumemt if the people objecting to the flag were objective historians.
As I said last time, the Confederate flag has not been a universal sign for racism for most of its existence. As late as the 1970s-early 1980s, it was displayed on cars in TV shows and during rock concerts. And while the civil rights movement was in full force, they had little to no concerns about this.
You, sir, are the one guilty of “intellectual laziness” with such drive-by comments that you can’t defend.
And as I said last time, you can’t be serious. The Confederate flag has been THE sign for racism for ALL of its existence. Again, it is more than that (love of region, love of Confederate patriarchs), but it is certainly not less than that.
“Racism” wasn’t even a thing until 40+ years after the South lost the war.
Again, completely predictable. Indomitable cluelessness.
The word “racism” didn’t exist until the 20th century, so if you want to describe what the flag represented before then, you’ll have to be more specific. (Did you even read Pastor Wilson’s recent post about this?)
It was definitely a thing. Racism existed long before the word “racism”.
So, you didn’t read that post.
Yes, I’ve read all Doug’s posts on this. Have you seen my replies to his posts on this subject?
Most of the people who fly the Confederate flag would be willing to run the Charleston shooter up a flagpole, after a fair trial and with an hour or so with a preacher to make peace with God. It’s our anti-flag liberal friends who want the taxpayers to feed, clothe and house the guy until he dies of old age.
I can be serious and you’ve shown no evidence for your position. Just bare assertions peppered with stale ad hominems.
Actually, I believe that the American flag has become a symbol of idolatry as well. If you oppose the Confederate flag, why support any flag other than the standard of Christ?
Doug, there is a question that we should ask about Moore’s opposition to Trump: does he oppose Trump because he is an awful, unvirtuous, un-Christian man, or because he wants to score points with the Left for vocally-opposing Trump’s “racism” and “bigotry.”
Is Moore’s opposition to Trump out of consistent principle or out of vainglorious, virtue-signalling? If it is the latter (and I think it is), shouldn’t we count that in the bad reflexes column too? Isn’t there a way to oppose Trump and be *worse* than Falwell?
It *is a good question, but not one that we can answer in good faith without assuming motive, which would be unloving (until evidence would present itself).
Yes, I think we should at least be skeptical about his opposition to Trump, based on what seems to be driving the rest of his decisions re: race, immigration, same-sex “wedding” receptions, opposition to Roy Moore, etc.
If you want to withhold judgment, that is certainly fine and definitely charitable. But after a certain point there is enough evidence to conclude something is not right here.
I have never understood this line of reasoning, that we must never assume the motive of an interlocutor or else it would be uncharitable. Are motives never, ever transparent? Isn’t “exposing motives” basically Paul’s whole strategy in Romans 1 when he describes those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Is it not a colossal waste of energy to engage in argument with somebody if both of your motivations are not out on the table? Who has the time to pussyfoot around like that?
Moreover, is it not the sine qua non of presuppositionalism? That there is no neutrality? Therefore, assume motive, push the antithesis, and all that?
I think those might be appropriate questions to ask if we were confronting a person directly as, for example, with church discipline or even simply a personal friend or family member or neighbor; in this case, when we’re only concerned with Moore in the sense that we might be concerned with Aquinas or Aristotle, it seem silly to ask for these charitable assumptions. There’s no need to be (and no value in being) charitable with an argument or a philosophy, and that’s the only way in which practically all of us are interacting with Moore.
We definitely need more writings like the paragraph beginning “if a homosexual couple lived next door…” that spell things out for people. Christians are inundated by the social gospel, the “God is Love” doctrine, the “judge not lest ye be judged” rhetoric and the chaos and confusion of our new culture, most are not thinking things through or maybe actually reading their Bibles. I am a wedding cake professional who suffered national scrutiny for declining to make a cake for the same sex mirage (I love that SO much!) of two lesbians. Amongst the avalanche of emails and phone messages… Read more »
May God bless you for your stand for truth.
Thank you for your bravery. You have been an inspiration to many
On the topic of manna-sharing: If sharing our manna is obligatory and the government claims the right to enforce that sharing, then wherefore art the grace in that?
It seems to me that the glaring thing missing in all this that would put much of it to bed is a simple mea culpa or explanation from Moore rather than leaving it sit for almost two years. What this means is hard to tell, but nothing good, most likely.
I thought it was called On Sharing Our Mama at first. I didnt know what to expect. Russell Moore isn’t a popular guy around here, but he’s a good guy in real life. He’s a christian man trying to glorify God as well as he can. He’s not right about everything, and I agree that he’s way off on this gay wedding reception thing. I was unaware of that before the last post. I think his commitment to opposing Trump doesnt have anything to do with him trying to ingratiate himself with the left in their hatred of Trump –… Read more »
It’s interesting that, as Wilson points out, Moore says you ought not go to a gay wedding but you can attend the ceremony. Isn’t this like saying you can support a mosque being built without supporting what they do inside? – which Moore also claims.
Should you go to the grand opening party when the mosque is done?
I would not go in support of it. Supporting building a mosque but not what goes on inside is like supporting a gay marriage celebration but not what goes on inside – and it’s like supporting Trump’s presidency but not what goes on in the oval office.
Well, we can talk about that, but as to your original analogy, not caring about “what they do inside” while at a reception seems more analogous to going to the grand opening or ribbon-cutting.
That’s how I took your analogy, but that’s more semantic, I reckon.
I think that my conscience would allow me to attend a party. I don’t see that as an endorsement of the religion, any more than attending Diwali celebrations in a friend’s home is an endorsement of Hinduism.
Aww jilly, that’s just some of that Roman Catholic syncretism.
I bet Dia de Los Meurtos is marked on your calendar, too, with little dancing Santa Muertes doodled on there!
That one weirds me out a little. There is something kind of pagan about putting food on graves.
You can support allowing the mosque to be built because you support the First Amendment, even if you deplore what goes on inside, and even if you never intend to step foot inside it. That, in fact, would be my position.
I actually agree with Krycheck here. Has Moore ever said anywhere that he supports mosques being built, or merely that he supports the legal right for mosques to be built? There is a very large difference, unless we’re all good with government censorship of speech, press, and assembly concerning things we don’t like, too.
Interesting that this piece from Moore from last September doesn’t touch on receptions, but seems to imply no wedding attendance at all: http://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/transcript-should-you-attend-your-childs-same-sex-wedding
Of course, the context (family members) is different.
Just curious. If “gay marriage” is inherently void, should a “gay married” couple who gets saved (or one gets saved) even bother with divorce? Might be legally useful, and practically useful to settle details, and maybe an official legal separation would be a good idea–register for NO sexual activity here–but if the “gay marriage” was inherently unreal, could a partner to it just go ahead and marry a la Adam and Eve without officially divorcing the mirage? Reject the very concept of “gay marriage” rather than just say this one didn’t work out?
Yes, but the legalities of the state may hinder that.
Were the state not involved in marriage the church could say you are not married and then marry them properly at the appropriate time.
I know two gay couples that got married and later divorced. Without a civil divorce, neither gay nor straight remarriage would now be permitted by the state.
That sounds needlessly complicated from a legal standpoint.
They entered into a legal arrangement. Whether or not that arrangement should be legal, it is, and it is binding.
Civilly speaking, the legal arrangement is not “inherently unreal,” only the idea that it is a marriage is unreal.
Regarding the Judge and “The law being clear”: that is not a valid reason to submit to or enforce an unrighteous law. At least it wasn’t for Dan, Shack, Rack and Benny.
Not that you care, but this is why I stick around.
Sky News and BBC project U.K.votes out of EU tyranny!
If true, glory!
Glory indeed. The English decided to remain English against the forces of globalism and multiculturalism.
The leader of that movement is a heavy drinker and smoker named Nigel Farage (I don’t know his faith). Yet, you recognize the good in the thing while not denigrating the flawed man who successfully ralleyed (tally ho!) towards the victory.
I urge you to extend the same courtesy to the Nigel Farage of American politics–Donald Trump.
The English decided to remain English against the forces of globalism and multiculturalism.
No, not really. They just think they did. But it’s far too late for that. They’ve imported so many non-whites already that their fate is sealed, and England will never again be “English” the way most people think of when they hear the word “Englishman” or “Brit.” Short of deporting millions and millions of non-whites, England has no choice but to become non-English
I do not abide the council of fearful men.
The first step in stopping the forced invasion of Islam into Europe is to remove the EU from power. Britain just did that via the vote, avoiding a war.
Build on that victory. If you cannot help or inspire, shut up.
You’re in good company.
Noah’s neighbors didn’t “abide the council of fearful men.”
Nor did Lot.
Sweet dreams, Princess!
(Also, it’s counsel.)
Thanks for the speling corrextion. Now take your doom and shove it.
Now take your doom and shove it.
Said Lot.
Said Noah’s neighbors.
Said the Jews of Jerusalem in AD 69.
Never points to victory, always points to defeat. Wonders why nobody follows .
LMAO
Please show me any comment where I’ve wondered why people don’t follow me.
Lotsa luck.
You ooze failure, that is clue enough.
Oh, yeah, I think most people, when they read a post of mine, are thinking, “Man, this guy’s a failure.”
LMAO
I concur.
a “LMAO” or a variation thereof
Actually, when I read your posts, I hear Mick Jagger singing, “Please allow me to introduce myself…”
Nice hat!
Johna, Moses, David…
JohnaMosesDavid, JohnaMosesDavid, bo-bohnaMosesDavid
Banana-fana fo-fohnaMosesDavid
Fee-fi-mo-mohnaMosesDavid
JohnaMosesDavid!
My goodness, you listened to R & B artists back in the day. Who would have thought?
I was never a fan of that song, but I LOVE Motown.
Every Saturday and Sunday I listen to the Supremes, The Temptations, The Four Tops, Marvin Gaye and Tammy Terrell, etc., on my Pandora Motown channel while I play poker online.
I know…
What can I say?
It is what it is.
I love Motown too. “I’ll Be Doggone” gets this tired old lady rocking out.
https://youtu.be/TKlub5vB9z8
I forgot to add Abraham.
You’re right. My comment about Brexit was too negative.
Yes, things look extremely dark right now, but big changes can happen quickly. I shouldn’t say there’s no hope at all.
Good for white Brits for doing what they can right now, and godspeed them in the future.
Thank you.
Doing the hard work when things look dark is what leaders do and the world needs Christian leaders right now.
I look forward to counting you among them.
Thanks. I hope to be among them.
Another trait of honorable white men is that they let bygones be bygones. So let’s just forget all about our little dust-up yesterday.
That all depends upon which direction Brexited England goes. The opportunity for greatness is theirs for the taking. Let’s pray they don’t spoil it.
I wouldn’t share my manna with Moore. Everyone was to gather his own. (Exo 16:16)
Being civil with someone is different from being friends. Being “friends” with a homosexual couple implies approval. Exactly what would be the basis for such a friendship?
If a homosexual couple lived next door, would I be willing to be friends with them? Of course. If they wanted me to watch their house while they were out of town, would I do it? Of course. If they invited us over for a birthday bbq, would we come? Of course. Jesus was a friend to sinners. But if the homosexual couple invited us over for a 10th anniversary celebration of their union, would I go? Of course not. They are created in the image of God. Their union is the image of something else, and must therefore be… Read more »
Well, that is true. The Bible does, after all, unambiguously prescribe death for any practicing homosexuals. If you want people to care about things that don’t affect them, like other people being gay, you have to enforce that norm with extreme prejudice. The inability or unwillingness to do so will bring, and has brought, the whole thing down.
“…things that don’t affect them…”
So the institution of marriage is of no value to society in your eyes?
40 ACRES wrote: Doug’s only quibble with Moore is timing. This is about as dense as suggesting that Jesus’ only concern about visiting prostitutes is timing. You can tell when 40 ACRES has wandered off his farm when his “arguments” apply just as well to condemn Jesus. 40 ACRES thinks Jesus was supporting the prostitutes and tax collectors when He visited and ate with them, right? Right? Here’s a clue for 40 ACRES (and Matt): I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or… Read more »
lolol
That’s a lot of words. Here’s fewer words for you:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
I’m honestly surprised that Doug Wilson is trying to avoid biting the bullet on this one. Arguing that one can associate with homosexuals is akin to arguing for associating with murderers or rapists. Which to be fair totally destroys Russell Moore’s position too.
Apparently Matt just skipped the words I quoted from 1Cor 5:9-11. His attempted application of Leviticus can’t make any sense of them. He appears to have also ignored my point about those who simply want to enact laws to catch as many as possible in their sin, as opposed to enacting severe laws as a deterrent. The government that is blessing homosexual unions one day cannot simply declare it a capital offense the next day. Such a government would have no credibility, and no repentance for its own sinful role. I’m sure Matt’s intent is to make us ashamed of… Read more »
Oh I have no use for all this nonsense, but you can’t evade it so easily. It may be implausible that the government executes homosexuals tomorrow, but Leviticus says what it says, and Christians are obliged to demand just that. I don’t imagine that will make great dinner conversation, but I guess you can give it a try.
That the Bible can’t actually be applied as a whole due to contradictions therein is your all’s problem, not mine.
We’ll let Matt know when he has credibility to tell Christians what they are obliged to demand.
I’ve explained how 1Cor 5:9-11 instructs a minority private Christian how to interact with a culture of sexual immorality, while Leviticus instructs principles of law that act as a deterrent against sexual immorality for a godly majority culture. Yet the sightless Matt can still see no principle to harmonize such passages. He simply asserts a hopeless contradiction and then asserts that Christians must demand Leviticus.
You’re still ridiculous.
I just re-read my comment, and you’re right. Boy, am I embarrassed.
My comment was completely devoid of substance, and I came off looking like a complete idiot.
Thanks for having the courage to call me on my BS.
What a ham. :)
For your further edification here is the most ridiculous sentence.
“Think Doug would be buds with this guy? No.”
Do you fash the Pepe?
An internet meme that I had to google? I’ll have to say no.
RHE? What does that stand for?
Rachel Held Evans. Notorious progressive former evangelical blogger.
Thank you! (Never heard of her.)
Unless he’s interested in knowing what will pass for mainstream evangelical and Reformed thought ten years from now.
She’s no longer an evangelical? I don’t follow her closely (mainly read about her on here), but I wasn’t aware that she had renounced her evangelical status.
Never mind. Evidently she decided to “walk away” from the label a couple years ago. I wasn’t aware of that.
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/what-now-world-vision
I suspect Wilson is being slightly disingenuous or underhanded here in his desire to offer some easy crowd-pleasing answers to questions of association with homosexuals, particularly “married” homosexuals. Wilson says, “If they wanted me to… If they invited us over… Jesus was a friend to sinners.” First, Wilson surely knows full well that the assumption that he can be a Christian, openly speaking the truth of scripture, is not going to lead to neighborly friendship, particularly not in today’s America, so the “if” scenarios he paints strike me as red herrings or at best intellectual thought exercises divorced from reality.… Read more »
I agree with your critique of Moore on same sex receptions and Roy Moore, but your out-of-the-blue blast of Moore’s tweet as being worse than Falwell’s compromise is neither the Joshua or Caleb way of leadership through this wilderness. Sure Moore has made his mistakes, and uncharitable posts like your last and your unwillingness to backpedal even the slightest demonstrates your need for grace as well. I enjoy your blog and your satirical manner, but I’m asking for a little more charitableness toward your Christian brethren (even Baptist Christian brethren).
If you’re like me, whenever you see that either Russell Moore or Al Mohler has written a new article, your automatic reaction is, “What fresh hell is this?”
Here’s Mohler’s latest. And he didn’t disappoint.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/ugly-stain-beautiful-hope-my-response-to-mika-edmondson
The SBC should just go ahead and change their name to the SJWC.
You will differ with me on this, and that’s fair, but I generally appreciate Mohler as a thinker and communicator though the tone of that whole thing is a little ridiculous. If Mohler feels the need to apologize, that’s his prerogative, but he kinda slathers on the “I shouldn’t respond to Mika because of racism, but Mika told me to so I’ll obey because I’m not racist.” It’s a little weird and not very masculine. If men in Christ are going to seek reconciliation, then they should do so as men, rather than one whipping the other into being gilded… Read more »
I have a LOT more respect for black scholars like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams than guys like Mika…or Mohler or Moore. They’ve spent their entire careers saying unpopular-but-true things and getting called “Uncle Tom.” That’s a lot more masculine then playing by the SJW rules and trying to be inoffensive all of the time.
I wonder if Mika ever addresses the problems in his own community? Completely disproportionate crime rates,children born out-of-wedlock, victim/entitlement mindset, etc. I recently took my kids to a skating rink where whites (and a few Hispanics) were in the minority. The poor owners were constantly telling the kids to follow the rules (skate in the right direction, don’t run out and play in the rink in shoes, don’t take things that don’t belong to you, etc.). I had kids asking me for money to play games and taking my son’s rolling balls away when he tried to play. Sadly, the… Read more »
Sounds like a very unpleasant time at the rink. But hardly unexpected when large numbers of blacks gather. But it would be even worse if it caused you to commit the unpardonable sin. Please tell me you didn’t even think the N word.
Hey, man, it’s like I’ve always said – if you’re a Christian, and you decide to get gaymarried, at least have the courtesy to gaymarry a dude named after Constantine. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2016/06/marriage-equality-and-the-role-of-gay-christians/
Tomorrow, it will have been a year since the Obergefell decision came down. And for all the brave talk from Judeochristians in the wake of the decision, it appears the war is over. Doug Wilson says he’d be happy to live next door to a gaymarried couple, and would treat them like a normal heterosexual couple, except that he would decline an invitation if they held an anniversary party. In other words, Doug, like Russell Moore, doesn’t really have a problem with gay marriage; he just doesn’t like gay weddings. Several religious liberty bills, written to allow small business owners… Read more »