Our Decomposing Lusts

Sharing Options

Update: Several friends have informed me that Fuller has taken a stand of sorts on this. I was going off Kirk’s bio on his site. You can read more here and here.

So J.R. Daniel Kirk has decided to go the inclusive route for all his “LGBTQ sisters, brothers, and others.” Get that? And “others,” to be announced later, in whatever order the imperious kultursmog may decide. Kirk is a professor of New Testament at Fuller — a seminary which is now just a few short steps away from the apogee of irrelevance, at which point we may start calling them Fullest. They are almost at Gnostic pleroma levels already, so it will be exciting to see that particular hermeneutical hot air balloon finally take off. I expect it to get to 10,000 feet before disappearing through the aperture of sexual correctness. And please read this paragraph in light of the update above.

Fuller Seminary is pleased to announce the establishment of a new chair of hermeneutical advancement.
Affirmation Seminary is pleased to announce the establishment of a new chair of hermeneutical advancement.

A little over a century before Kirk decided to add his BTUs to this project, Chesterton said this in one of his prophetic moments. And every day that goes by seems to reveal that Chesterton was actually having way more prophetic moments back then than he really got credit for.

“It is the final sign of imbecility in a people that it calls cats dogs and describes the sun as the moon—and is very particular about the preciseness of these pseudonyms. To be wrong, and to be carefully wrong, that is the definition of decadence” (G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men).

There are two responses to make to Kirk, one sociological and the other theological. First, the sociological point. Evangelicals who go the affirming route are like some poor sap with erectile dysfunction wandering around the outer perimeter of the orgy, making inclusive comments as he goes.

“I am not surrendering the notion of sexual ethics, but inviting LGBTQ people into the same difficult sexual ethic of life-long committed partnership that Christ has called me to.”

What’s this life-long committed partnership wussy stuff? Who are you kidding? Heterosexuals aren’t even required to do that anymore — which is, incidentally, what set us up for the current flamer fiasco. Are homosexuals not to be permitted to “grow apart,” all while remaining the “best of friends”? Why do heteros get to use that lie, while staying in Kirk’s idea of a swell affirming church, and the homos don’t get to? Maybe Kirk meant that the “life-long” thingy is kind of an ideal, you know, the kind of thing you shoot for, while not quite attaining it. Like going to an all-you-can-eat China buffet resolved not to have too much of their almond chicken with that special msg-crust, and then having a bit too much of it anyway. Kind of like that.

And how the hell are you supposed to promise a woman that you will be her “life-long committed partner” when Bruce has now shown us all how one might discover in his fifties that he made all those life-long promises under the false impression that he was a guy? It was the penis that threw everybody off. Understandable mistake, really. Medical science was really primitive back then.

Then when he discovers the truth, or what passes for it these days — and because his soon-to-be-ditched wife is not a lesbian, and is intent on not becoming one, especially with him — this kind of requires a divorce, does it not? Life-long, wife-schmong.

The sociological point is that Kirk under the inexplicable impression that the sexual revolution will tolerate any limits whatever. The stated value of life-long committed relationships is just the next suburban house teetering on the lip of this vast sexual sinkhole that we have created. There are other houses of value sliding toward the edge also — the prejudices against incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and more. The logic of the sinkhole is what it is because the revolution is, let us be frank, really pretty horny.

Churchill once described an appeaser as “one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The sooner people like Kirk realize that the revolution always eats its children, the sooner we will be able see the look on his face when the revolution starts to devour things that he thought were sacrosanct, like the naivete of evangelical seminary profs. His blog is titled Storied Theology, and the subtitle is “Telling the Story of the Story-Bound God.” But what happens to the sell-outs in all the stories? Stories, forsooth!

But let us not neglect the theology of the thing. This theological point has to be pounded home, again and again, as much as we can pound anything into the thin gruel of relativistic thought. But let us try. Kirk’s whole biblical case rests upon blurring the distinction between the moral law which is eternal, and the ceremonial and judicial laws, which are not.

Let us listen to some theologians who were not being wafted along by the thermal layers created by our decomposing lusts.

“3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. 4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require”(WCF 19.3-4).

Kirk argues explicitly for the freedom of the Spirit to blow on down the road, in a way quite detached from His Word. The older (saner) theologies maintained that the laws against seducing your neighbor’s wife were in a different category than the prohibition of clam chowder was. They maintained that this distinction was to be found in the nature of the laws themselves, and in the character of the God who gave them. They taught that these distinctions were discoverable by exegesis.

But this is where Kirk could respond to us and our up-tighteries with a facile and sophomoric ho, ho, ho. The sabbath was supposed to be eternal, he says, but then the Spirit went and did something else. The rite of circumcision was supposed to mark the descendants of Abraham until the sun stopped shining. But then the Spirit went and changed His mind.

As our Spanish friends might say, the problemo with this approach is that it proves way too much. Once Kirk has banished a fixed and eternal moral law, revealed by God in Scripture, and distinguishable from other types of law in Scripture through careful exegesis, and he exults in the Spirit’s ability to fellowship with strange characters — more than a few of whom have shown up in gay pride parades — he will soon discover “the Spirit’s” ability to fellowship with even stranger characters. I have in mind people like editors of neo-Confederate newsletters, curators of Holocaust-denial museums, and people who won’t put their cans into the right recycling bin. Once you are detached from the Word, you can take it anywhere.

What this means — and I think the board of Fuller really ought to look into it — is that Kirk is approving in principle the legitimacy of the KKK, a faith-based organization if ever there was one. Here we all were, following the Spirit down that broad road that Jesus used to talk so much about, when the Spirit all of a sudden took a hard right and headed off four-wheeling into the fever swamps. I have a hard time believing that Kirk had the effrontery to argue — in this day and age — that we need to walk the inclusive journey with those persecuted brethren who are simply trying to protect white womanhood. But that is exactly what he did. At Fuller!

The only thing Kirk could say in his defense is that the Spirit is not allowed to detach from some parts of the Word. I mean, He is not allowed to go fellowship with unrepentant racist murderers, right? Right. Or unrepentant homosexuals either. Okay, that won’t work. What’s the hermeneutical principle here? Coin flips?

Or there is something else Kirk could say. He could confess the truth that he is not a Christian anymore. He is not a follower of Christ, and not a follower of Christ’s Spirit, who always works in harmony with the Word, but rather a follower of a spirit. Not the Spirit of Christ, who is the very Spirit of the Word. Rather he is a follower of the spirit of the age, which is suitably progressive and gives him a warm glow all over.

Two last things. The first will help you understand all the controversies that are currently raging. The clash today is between the Christians, who affirm the absolute supremacy of Jesus Christ over all things, and the unbelievers, who affirm the absolute supremacy of the way they are feeling right now. Immediate feelings are the final and ultimate potentate for them, whether feelings of lust, envy, hurt, greed, malice, or self-loathing. This is why arguments don’t matter. This is why Scripture doesn’t matter. This is why facts don’t matter. This is why, for example — in our local uproar about sexual offenders — our adversaries are hurt by our lack of answers, and then when they get answers, they are hurt by that. The constant is the feeling of misery, and so their arguments, facts, documents, reasoning, etc. just float on the surface of the river of their discontents, like a chunk of styrofoam on the Grand Ronde.

The second point is the same point writ large. You can see the imperious nature of Queen Feelings on full display in The Free Speech Apocalypse, due to be released in just a few weeks. Pay particular attention to the relationship between grounded facts and the feelings of the demonstrators (i.e. none) and pay particular attention to the apology segment in that movie, where feelings dictate the necessity of apologies. Apologies are never owed because of wrong done, but rather because of wrong felt. And once you have admitted that principle — as even many Christians have urged me to do — you have admitted the entrance of a blind and irritated despot, and have consented to live in their hellhole. To which I do not consent.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
194 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Adam Jones Jr.
5 years ago

“Apologies are never owed because of wrong done, but rather because of wrong felt.”

Shane Scott
Shane Scott
5 years ago

I’m not sure if Kirk will continue at Fuller much longer. The school has decided not to offer him tenure because of his views. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/09/fuller-seminary-takes-a-stand

Occidoxy
5 years ago
Reply to  Shane Scott

Kirk’ll likely be gone from there soon, but surprisingly, not soon enough.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
5 years ago

Utterly superb, pastor.

Perhaps, just maybe, you might take another look at the supposed horniness behind that movement’s logic and motivation.
Eve wasn’t tempted most by the prospect of weird sex, but rather having whatever she wanted.
Same here:

— just the thought of the supremacy of their desires, whatever they may be, is what gets them horny.

Eric Runge
Eric Runge
5 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

I could buy that.

Eric Runge
Eric Runge
5 years ago

Excellent post Doug. Thank you.

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
5 years ago
Reply to  Eric Runge

Excellent post indeed.
#WeMustDissent

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

From a commentor:
“In a centered set Christianity such as you describe in your article, why would you not include all members of the other two Abrahamic religions, i.e. Jews and Muslims, as “Gentiles” as well and welcome them into full inclusion in the life of the church also.”

Kirk:
“I don’t see them clamoring to be included among our number as those who follow Jesus.”

ME
ME
5 years ago

Powerful and really well said. I must speak in defense of feelings here however, something that really baffles me. The current political climate is totally based on emotion and feelings which seems to be defining our morality, but why just those feelings? I look at Bruce Jenner and I feel grief for a dead little boy, rejected and murdered in spirit at least. I look at those half naked, sexually defiant Pride Parades and Slutwalks and see great wounding, child sexual abuse, people who wish to make their very identity an exclusively sexual one, based on nothing more than a… Read more »

David R
David R
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

This is a wonderful point. All feelings are equal, some are just more equal than others.

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

The Spirit grieves, the Father rejoices, the Son weeps…there are feelings aplenty in the Godhead, and we are created to have feelings in abundance. The primary distinction is whether these feelings, like everything else in life, have been subjected unto the obedience of Christ. To make one’s feelings the barometer of moral acceptance is clearly to sin in this regard.
When we feel God’s emotions after Him, we are doing well. And His emotions run the gamut.

ME
ME
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Oh, thank you, that makes a lot more sense. Feelings, not unlike thoughts, that have been subjected to the obedience of Christ, will naturally align with His will. Well, duh! That seems rather obvious to me now and really does help to explain some things.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Luke 13: Jesus’ Sorrow for Jerusalem 31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.” 32 He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ 33 In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem! 34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I… Read more »

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

Pedophilia is an allowable lifestyle choice at Doug’s church—if they are weally weally sorry

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

“Pedophilia is an allowable lifestyle choice at Doug’s church”

Is that in the CREC constitution somewhere, or are you just trying to be silly?

David Parker
David Parker
5 years ago
Reply to  ME

I remember something about how God will not turn away from a broken and contrite heart. I would say the moment a broken and contrite heart pops up in that crowd, it will leave the perversion behind and head for Jesus. Until then, nothing you can do except pray God to send his Spirit to regenerate these lost souls. In the meantime, this bunch is intentionally nasty. They want everyone else to be as miserable as they are and want to bring you down into the cesspool where they live. Do you pity Satan? Only if you don’t know Satan.… Read more »

Dan Phillips
Dan Phillips
5 years ago

In the classes I taught at Talbot, “Fuller” was “the f-word.” We said “more full.”

The still-much-maligned Harold Lindsell was dead-on ten-ring precisely right in his critique of Fuller’s decay. He’d be sad to see this, but unsurprised.

Jay Dean Niemeyer
Jay Dean Niemeyer
5 years ago

“And how the hell are you supposed to promise a woman that you will be her “life-long committed partner” when Bruce has now shown us all how one might discover in his fifties that he made all those life-long promises under the false impression that he was a guy? It was the penis that threw everybody off. Understandable mistake, really. Medical science was really primitive back then.”

Doug, you have to stop. Human physiology can only take so much laughter.

RFB
RFB
5 years ago

Back during the Vietnam days, R&R often included venues using Philippine bands that performed quite talented covers of popular songs. Their native tongue (Filipino) rendered the English letter “F” as a “P”.

This created a version that many from that time will remember:

“Peelings, nothing more than Peelings…”

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

Just heard about a guy across the pond who had his ears removed so he could look more like his pet parrots. The article quotes a plastic surgeon there in the UK who was “absolutely horrified to learn that someone has voluntarily put themselves forward for this to be done and possibly more so that he found somebody to actually carry it out.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275576/Who-s-pretty-boy-Parrot-obsessed-man-56-EARS-cut-look-like-pets-wants-turn-nose-beak.html

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Is anyone horrified that there was found someone to actually DO this heinous mutilation, or should we suppose that the jackalope just whacked his own ears off.

Good Lord…the insanity of it all. I thought we locked these kinds of people up in padded cells…?

Steve
Steve
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Ahh. The ‘ol Parrotplasty.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

Let’s hope jimmy buffet fans don’t get any ideas! ;-)

AeroBob
AeroBob
5 years ago

Doug, could you please interact (or point me somewhere) a little more on this: ‘But this is where Kirk could respond to us and our up-tighteries with a facile and sophomoric ho, ho, ho. The sabbath was supposed to be eternal, he says, but then the Spirit went and did something else. The rite of circumcision was supposed to mark the descendants of Abraham until the sun stopped shining. But then the Spirit went and changed His mind.’ You appeal to the reformers and show the reductio, but when I have to fight these battles in my church or with… Read more »

David R
David R
5 years ago
Reply to  AeroBob

For circumcision use Romans 2:29 “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” and Colossians 2:11 “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;” So circumcision is still a thing. We, who are saved, are circumcised, but that circumcision is of the heart and the removal of the body of flesh, which the OT… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  AeroBob

First of all we don’t buy any of these points because they are so wildly sexually obsessed. To a non-christian it looks absolutely crazy and frankly suspect. The fact of the matter is that we are moving to a more peaceful global society. Less war, less violence. We know more about and contribute to human flourishing that ever before and this is due to secular advances: understanding of in group out group dynamics genetics, evidence based interventions, public health measures, the judicial system, trade, the increase in literacy. Reason. In time, inclusive humanist christian thinkers may be held to be… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

In the same breath you esteem, and I quote, “secular advances: understanding of in group out group dynamics genetics, evidence based interventions, public health measures, the judicial system, trade, the increase in literacy” BUT you downplay the eventual and escalating slide into society’s acceptance of incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.?

You call out “reason” but I ask, in the Name of Almighty Reason, WHY?

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

If you are using something called Almighty Reason I would expect that question. Indeed!

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I’m so tempted to screenshot this and pull it out in a year. Just for the fond, warm, fuzzy memories of when those who reject God’s plan for sex were still deluded in thinking that this meant there were still rules.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Six months ago he was probably telling Aaron and Melissa Klein how gay marriage wouldn’t affect them at all.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Oh, that’s true. We were assured, over and over again, that gay marriage wouldn’t affect freedom of speech.

That, of course, doesn’t apply to hate speech.

Carson Spratt
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

When you say “he” are you referring to Doug or Kirk?

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Carson Spratt

I was referring to RandMan. I would have used his name, but for some reason he hates it when people do that.

Carson Spratt
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Aha, your comment makes much more sense now. I went back and read the context. Yes, sexual incrementalism must lie about its goals to be accepted in the interim. But the endgame is coming into play, I think, and things are becoming much more obvious.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

No just Ayn Rand who is a hack.

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Now you’ve done it! Stay off Rand, man.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

I always ask the question of christians (and muslims I know) who insist that morality comes from the bible, qur’an and hadith: if you didn’t have your texts to tell you otherwise, would you rape, murder, have sex with animals, rape children etc.?

If you argue that you would, then that says much about you. I for one would request your bible chained around your neck 24/7 thank you very much.

Ian Miller
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I’d probably benefit from it. Though I do have it on my phone, which is almost on my person 24/7. :) This question doesn’t make a lot of sense. Are you positing a world where those texts never existed? Or a world in which I am completely unaware of them, in a culture which is untouched by their ideas? I don’t view the Bible as a magic totem against depravity – but people reading it in the Spirit, being sanctified by grace, and changing the culture around them – that does tend to create a wider climate of sexual morality.… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Overall the data shows quite clearly that violence and war have declined precipitously even during the 20th century when you control for population. Meaning, you have less of a chance of dying violently then ever before in human history.

David R
David R
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

“Meaning, you have less of a chance of dying violently then ever before in human history.” This is not the result of secularism or reason or any other progressive code word. It is the result of a Christian ethos that was the foundation of Western civilization. Hospitals, universities, literacy, science, reason, etc are all the offspring of Christianity. The very reason things are better today than they were in history is because of the influence of Christianity. The majority of human history is one of violence and bloodshed, and without Christianity, it would still be that way today. It is… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  David R

Hmm. Not just christianity, but religion. It is unlikely that we will be able to remove the lodestone that is superstition as it is likely hard-wired as a survival mechanism. But the data shows progress. You can claim christian values, but you would be incorrect. Christianity just happened to be the religion of the day in the west. The most important scientific advancements (heliocentrism, evolution, genetics) and moral advancements (slavery, civil rights for american blacks and homosexuals, women’s rights, not killing witches, gays, etc., advocating for children) was done in spite of biblical pronouncements to the contrary. Look at you… Read more »

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

And how do you know that “slavery, civil rights for american blacks and homosexuals, women’s rights, not killing witches, gays, etc., advocating for children” are moral advancements? If you chuck religion, you’re left with no basis for notions of morality. And you know this; you just can’t compose a coherent sentence without setting that aside and hoping no one notices. Yes, SOME of the things you listed have biblical pronouncements to the contrary of SOME people’s practices in SOME locations at SOME points in history. But you see, in order for you to know that these things are immoral, you… Read more »

Rick
Rick
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

I would say that getting anyone who admires Ayn Rand to think rationally is a lost cause.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Malachi

So prior to christianity, there were no societies that had an ethical framework? Greece? Just human amorality run amok huh? Even primates like apes and chimps show concern for others and the understanding of social rules as to how they should be treated. Social living requires empathy,social order and rules of expected behavior. If you break the social code, you are more likely to be shunned, pushed to the outside and less likely to pass on your genes. Hello evolution. There is no precursor to religion in primates, so clearly it came after reciprocal in-group altruism. Religion seems to have… Read more »

David Parker
David Parker
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Each society is defined by its ethics: duties and the reasons for the duties. Greece did not have a Christian ethic. Notice that Greece is no longer a major player in the world and neither is Rome and neither is the USSR and neither will the United States be if we Christians keep allowing you atheists to replace Christian ethics and morality with your secular humanism and its built in religion of evolution to replace God (can’t but you have to keep telling yourself you are consistent). You are correct that prior to Christianity there were no ethical societies if… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

I stand corrected.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “Greece did not have a Christian ethic. Notice that Greece is no longer a
major player in the world and neither is Rome and neither is the USSR
and neither will the United States be if we Christians keep allowing you
atheists to replace Christian ethics and morality with your secular
humanism and its built in religion of evolution to replace God (can’t
but you have to keep telling yourself you are consistent).”

Please provide proof.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “You are correct that prior to Christianity there were no ethical
societies if by ethics you mean the recognition that God determines good
and evil and God supplies the ethics.”

You are lying. Please explain the Old Testament.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “The fact, however, is that everyone from Adam on who had faith in the
future Redeemer was every bit as much a Christian as those in the early
church after Jesus the Christ entered history as a man born of woman.”

You are lying. There is no scriptural evidence.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “All the ancient governments with their flawed ethical frameworks have
collapsed. This should be a lesson to you about what works and what
doesn’t. Let’s hear it for theonomy.”

Please explain England.

Bonhoeffer1945
Bonhoeffer1945
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Would that be the same ‘genetics’ that have us the gift of eugenics?

gfkdzdds
gfkdzdds
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

You mean like the monk Gregor Mendel? I guess he had nothing to do with genetics. You search your science for answers that can only be found in Christ.

David Parker
David Parker
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Look at you atheists pretending there can be good or evil without the very God you profess does not exist. Also, quit your pussyfooting and admit that Christianity is your target. Christianity, the one and only true religion that acknowledges the one and only God who has revealed himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons in one essence, incomprehensible to we his creatures, yet we bear his image. Only Christianity is a coherent account of the history of the universe and the origin of mankind and all living things on earth. It is Christianity that you… Read more »

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “Also, quit your pussyfooting and admit that Christianity is your target.
Christianity, the one and only true religion that acknowledges the one
and only God who has revealed himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, three persons in one essence, incomprehensible to we his
creatures, yet we bear his image. Only Christianity is a coherent
account of the history of the universe and the origin of mankind and all
living things on earth.”

You are lying. Please explain the countless science books.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “It is Christianity that you atheists attack relentlessly. Islam is a
bad joke theologically, it has no foundation in fact, no explanation of
how we came to be, nothing but a collection of incoherent ramblings with
an invented fiction to reverence. I cannot believe that Mohammed
actually believed the gibberish he is alleged to have written or that he
believed in the fiction he claimed to worship. The eastern religions
are a similar pile of confusion, with dead leaders.”

You are lying. Please explain the Dalai Lama.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “Christianity is the foundation of all the good that is in the world today.”

You are lying. Please explain the taboo against cannibalism that existed for centuries across the globe before Christianity existed.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: ” In Christianity world, women have always had rights as well as the role of helpmate.”

You are lying. Please explain the countless women who had no rights in the Christian world.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “Christianity recognizes the worth of every man because man is created in the image of God.”

Please provide proof.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “The inquisition is a good example: It was in no way a Christian
institution but a satanic exercise behind the facade of Roman
Catholicism masquerading as Christianity.”

The Inquisition was begun and ran by Catholics. Catholics are Christians. Ergo, the Inquisition was a Christian institution.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

you have less of a chance of dying violently then ever before in human history

Unless you’re not born yet.

David
David
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

RandMan,

There are a lot of reasons for this, some of which are not directly related to religion, and some of which I would argue are directly related. To state this as somehow a pat proof for your point of view is far too simplistic, I am afraid.

Jon Swerens
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Ian: RandMan is actually right. The world is growing more peaceful and less violent *overall*. But the world is *not* growing more and more secular. In fact, evangelicals are outpacing population growth in all but maybe 10 countries worldwide. But since the U.S. is one of those countries in which evangelical growth is not *that* fast, the secular American takes his view from our shores as normative.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Jon Swerens

That the non-western world may not be growing more secular does not mean that secular advances listed above are not what is doing the heavy lifting throughout with regard to advancement and well-being.

Western enlightenment values are the cornerstone of our progress.

Bonhoeffer1945
Bonhoeffer1945
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

What do you make of Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 address to the secular elite at Harvard? Is he just another right-wing nut job? Might he have seen another side of your Enlightenment values?

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago
Reply to  Jon Swerens

Secular liberalism has brought peace and stability as long as you ignore the 20th century ideological wars and pogroms in Europe and China as well as the wars and color revolutions to bring democracy to the Middle East. It has brought reduced crime in America as long as you start your sample during the 1960s post Civil Rights crime explosion and as long as you ignore the fact that a large portion of the low IQ, impulsive people most likely to commit crimes are murdered in utero and another large portion is kept perpetually in prison.

Kyle
Kyle
5 years ago
Reply to  Barnabas

Woah buddy. That’s some expert dog whistling.

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  Kyle

It is the welcome frank analysis of the NRx mind; a mind grounded in facts and the noble impulse to state them clearly–especially among those who would rather not hear them. Reading them is like reading a flowering literary movement–say Fitzgerald, etc–yet the subjects tend toward Dostoevsky.

It is thought, liberated, as thought should be. I am very grateful for it.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

The biblical idea of morality is gives us nothing much better than in-group reciprocal altruism, practiced to a large degree even by lesser primates: Do unto others.

Tim Paul
Tim Paul
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Randi a pathetic attention whore of the worst degree. He doesn’t cuckle with other atheists because he knows there is no there there. He comes here so we will provide him with attention that all attentions need for their meaningless lives to become more meaningful.

Interesting that he finds community here rather than with his randy Darwinists?

What up?

We know what’s up.

Hounds of heaven have been unleashed.

Or, more fodder for his imminent cosmic court date.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

What about love your enemies?

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

The assumption that RandMan would just absolutely know those things are wrong without thousands of years of Hebrew/Christian morality tightly bonded with the air he breathes is charming, in light of the fact that there are, after all, people who don’t.

RFB
RFB
5 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

“…thousands of years of Hebrew/Christian morality tightly bonded with the air he breathes…”

Excellent point Ma’am, and one that has either been forgotten or untaught in much of modern (post or not) American Christianity.

David
David
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

RandMan, I would answer that by saying that: 1. As a Christian, it is more than just a matter of asking the hypothetical question regarding what I would do if a book did not exist, or if a book gave different directives than it does in this reality. The Christian claims to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and that His Spirit has changed our spirit so that we do not desire, as a direction in our life, those things you mention. 2. The issue for us would be that without a God who has the authority to… Read more »

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  David

Respectfully David, I do understand you, as a christian without the authority that a god presents, have a hard time understanding how there could be a ‘right and wrong’ in the world. I used to share your view. It seems clear from the evolutionary evidence of out ancestors, that we would not have survived very long without the reciprocal cooperation of small in-group dynamics. Any socialized human can recognize the value of moral principles for their own quality of life and that of others around them. Even religious people cannot avoid making personal choices about which morality they should base… Read more »

timothy
timothy
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I do understand the distress;

you are very small; comical if not so sad. .

Ree
Ree
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I accidentally replied to this in the wrong place, but my reply is somewhere in these comments.

Bonhoeffer1945
Bonhoeffer1945
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

You’re a riot, Randman. Really. I couldn’t make this stuff up. What sacred word was Lenin holding? Mao? Hitler? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? The folks at PP ripping fetus apart in utero?

Tom©
Tom©
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Randman discusses moral law as though it is his own common sense.
Randman suggests that if we didn’t have God’s word, we would spin off into moral depravity.
Randman even goes so far as to suggest we keep it on us 24/7.
Perhaps Randman thinks that if we didn’t have a calendar to mark the days, the earth would spin out of orbit.

Kyle
Kyle
5 years ago
Reply to  Tom©

In this metaphor, you’re the one asserting that the calendar is the source of orbits.

Tom©
Tom©
5 years ago
Reply to  Kyle

God is the source of morality whether or not we read the Bible.
God set the planets in motion whether or not we look at the calendar.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Tom©

Nope, a few of you all are suggesting that. It reminds me of that absurdly funny SNL skit where Will Farrell is an anchorman whose teleprompter malfunctions. Within a minute or two everyone on-set are eating each other. No, what I am saying (again) is that your god’s word is not necessary to hold society together under a common ethical framework. We would not be here if we had not evolved to live and work together with a common ethical understanding. Notice we are not arguing about the basics of altruistic reciprocation here but the manner in which two men… Read more »

Jon Swerens
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

But what *is* necessary? I always have trouble finding your positive declaration within all your negative ones. That is: Which atheistic philosophical framework are you advancing as the correct one?

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Jon Swerens

Jon, I am not really certain what you mean by that question of framework? Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity- not really a philosophical frame work. You know what this feels like. You do not believe in Poseidon, Hera, Allah, Ra and hundreds of the other gods left in the dust.

Please clarify if I got that wrong?

Jon Swerens
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Right, but I do not believe in those other puny gods because I believe in one True God. So, yes, of course atheism is the lack of belief in a deity — but you speak very clearly from *some* sort of philosophical framework or … something. For example, you say: “your god’s word is not necessary to hold society together under a common ethical framework.” OK, well, that statement packs a lot of assumptions well beyond blank atheism that I haven’t seen backed up yet. Perhaps I missed them. Is a “common ethical framework” good? Necessary? Optional? Why or why… Read more »

Tom©
Tom©
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

Sure ethical frameworks can be cobbled together. What I’m saying is that anything that resembles morality has already come from God. Being created in his image, we all have an inherent sense of right and wrong. No one needs the Bible to know that homosexuality is unnatural. The real problem is the arrogance of thinking we can “make it right”. That we can make laws that are higher than God’s law.

David Parker
David Parker
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I argue that the heart of man is desperately wicked and who can know it but God. I argue that were you not restrained as you are, you would do whatever you wanted right now. Mohammed’s ravings have no relevance to anything except successful cult management. They are on a par with the ramblings of Joseph Smith Jr., Mary Baker Eddy, Judge Rutherford, L. Ron Hubbard, ad nauseum: They got other people to feed them but they sold their souls in the process. The Holy Bible, on the other hand, is what God, creator of the universe and everything in… Read more »

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “The Holy Bible, on the other hand, is what God, creator of the universe
and everything in it, has revealed to us of the creation, fall, and the
outworking of his plan of redemption.”

Please provide proof.

Waykent
Waykent
5 years ago
Reply to  David Parker

You made the following statement: “Too bad, you will die like Nietzche, a mere atheist raving for superman
to save him from the God he was soon to face alone, without the Savior.”

Who is Nietzche?

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

“The fact of the matter is that we are moving to a more peaceful global society. Less war, less violence. We know more about and contribute to human flourishing that ever before and this is due to secular advances: understanding of in group out group dynamics genetics, evidence based interventions, public health measures, the judicial system, trade, the increase in literacy. Reason.”

Ahahahaha! Oh man, that is rich! I love this, and I love you RAndMan!

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

Evan, just once I would like you to commit yourself to a real idea here. I am rooting for you man!

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

I am committed to enjoying your comments on this board. Does that work for you?

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

While I think that Randman is completely wrong about the causes because it does not match history, there is reason to argue that overall violence as a %age may be decreasing, and that absolute poverty rates are declining in the last 50 years.

Of course the aberrations of the early 20th century means that we should be cautious about decadal trends.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

“While I think that Randman is completely wrong about the causes because it does not match history, there is reason to argue that overall violence as a %age may be decreasing, and that absolute poverty rates are declining in the last 50 years.”

Postmillenialism FTW? ????

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

“less war less violence”???
C’mon bro,
Chicago Baltimore Syria and Libya may disagree with you.
I might add that as someone who has been to each of those places a couple of decades ago I will also.

Josh
Josh
5 years ago
Reply to  AeroBob

AeroBob: as a first step, instead of focusing on what changes did or didn’t happen at the time of the Gentiles being included in Christ, focus on the legitimacy (or otherwise!) of the parallel Kirk is trying to make. Any changes over the meaning/form/significance/outward obedience of the Sabbath and Circumcision came right on the back of Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection (the very thing the law was meant to point us towards) and were explained by apostles who had a unique role of building a foundation for the church. The changes that Kirk wants to bring about might be convincing… Read more »

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago

Christians have been throwing everything and each other at the crocodile for decades in the attempt to be the last one eaten. Its not really primarily the sexual revolution but the progressive cultural revolution. We notice the sexual issues because they are nearly the only thing left to feed the croc. Many other social goods have long been given up and even forgotten.

Malachi
Malachi
5 years ago

“Apologies are never owed because of wrong done, but rather because of wrong felt.”

And the corollary might be: “Forgiveness is always owed because of wrong felt, not necessarily because of wrong done.”

Barnabas
Barnabas
5 years ago

I’m sure there are plenty of good seminary professors who don’t make the news but it seems that a seminary professor is less likely to hold orthodox beliefs than the average regular church goer. The denominational fish appears to rot from the head down.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

Golly I wish I could un-see that picture.

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

You mean the cartoon in the upper right?

Stone Kirk
Stone Kirk
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

I posted this above, but so far no one will answer it. But you seem to agree with Wilson that the guy in the picture is a disgusting freak. So maybe you’d like to address it. And don’t give me some vague verse like “let everything be done decently and in order”, which could just as easily be applied to the Sitler disgrace. Show me a verse in the Bible that says that men shouldn’t look like that: Question for Wilson and his fans. Recently, Wilson said that there are no biblical grounds for refusing to marry a serial child… Read more »

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

I answered Stone Kirk below, less than an hour after he posted it. So he’s awfully premature in declaring that no one will answer. Unfortunately, Stone Kirk didn’t accept the answer. As it turns out, Scripture that directly addresses the principle is not good enough for him. He seems to want a verse that gives the exact skirt length.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
5 years ago

I’m mentioned this before, but ever since Goodrich, MA in 2003, a whole bunch of legally inclined folks have wondered what the basis could be for a state holding the line at (a) just 2 people – – M x F, M x M, or F x F makes no legal difference in this context – – or (b) commitment (as in faithful, not duration).

Based on the logic of Obergefell, I’m seriously wondering how the M x 2F loses in UT.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago

The argument would be that polygamous relationships are inherently less stable than two-person relationships, and that as actually practiced they tend to be patriarchal and sexist.

David R
David R
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Ummm gay relationships are less stable that heterosexual relationships, so that wont fly. You seem to also be implying that the state can deny marriage based on undefined things like patriarchy, sexism, or inherent stability.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  David R

Do you have any hard data that gay relationships are less stable? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but with all the hetero marriages ending in divorce, or not bothering to get married at all, I’d like to see some data before I commit. Plus at one time society and the state did everything it could to undermine gay relationships, yet gay couples managed to stay together in spite of some fairly vicious hostility. Not sure if the state could ban patriarchal sexist marriages or not. The argument that it could is that it is unconstitutional for the state itself to… Read more »

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Male homosexuality is incredibly promiscuous. To the level that many people not in the know deny could be real. “Committed” monogamous relationships almost always include other sexual partners outside the 2.

This is well known. It is not denied by the gay community.

JohnM
JohnM
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

True, but I get the impression that lesbians are the ones mostly interested in formalizing their relationship in the first place. Is my impression mistaken?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

I think that’s true; I think the ratio of female couples to male couples that has gotten married is 3 to 1.

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

So Krychek_2 is against male-male marriage for the same reason that he’s against polygamous marriage then, right? Because they are “inherently less stable”, right? Oh, he’s for male-male marriages regardless of their instability? So he won’t appeal to his own instability argument consistently, but he still thinks it should work to stop the next step of legalization of polygamy? So much for his utilitarianism.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Actually, I didn’t take a position; I explained what the argument was for that position. Nice try, though.

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Why doesn’t Krychek_2 take a position? Is his argument about instability not good enough to form a position? If not, then how is it good enough to prevent legalization of polygamous marriage? Krychek_2 used the very same argument to reach a position on polygamy, didn’t he? Is this instability argument good enough to reach conclusions, or not? What else has Krychek_2 got in his little bag of arbitrary utilitarian moral marbles?

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I didn’t take a position because it wasn’t necessary given the question that had actually been asked. Someone wanted to know what would be the argument that the state can ban polygamous marriage, and so I said what the argument would be. Just as, I would think, someone could answer the question “what’s the argument for supralapsarianism” without taking a position on supralapsarianism itself. The question was, what is the argument for that position. The question was not, What does Krychek think about the merits. I sometimes feel like I’m playing the straight man to Katecho’s vaudeville stooge.

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Krychek_2 has tried to assure us that polygamy is not a natural progression from same-sex mirage. However, the argument that he offers (“less stable relationships”) would undermine his own commitment to male-male marriage, so he balks. He runs away from commitment when challenged to reconcile with his other premises. I’m delighted to see that Krychek_2 isn’t even persuaded by his own arguments. Atheism in paralysis, allergic to commitment. It should be obvious at this point that atheists like Krychek_2 don’t and won’t have anything substantive to say against polygamy when it reaches the Supreme Court. If he had any argument… Read more »

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Late no, if it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead.

Eric Runge
Eric Runge
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Come out of the dark ages. That’s what they used to say about gay relationships. C’mon, this is 2015. And next year it’ll be 2016.

Kelly M. Haggar
Kelly M. Haggar
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Syllabus of Goodrich: “The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity… Read more »

Mike Bull
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Whereas in a gay marriage, patriarchy and sexism are impossible, and you get to CHOOSE who is the top and who is the bottom.

jesuguru
jesuguru
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

How then would three (or more) of the same sex be patriarchal or sexist? Still not a compelling argument against polygamy, nor is something being “as actually practiced”, when theoretical ideals should be enough. And some of the arguments for SSM were that though homosexual relationships were often more-than-mildly unstable and dysfunctional “as actually practiced”, legalization would add legitimacy and stability.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago

I am familiar with a situation in which it was brought to the attention of the leadership of an evangelical Christian church that one of their deacons had swindled an elderly lady out of $3,000. Not only was he not stripped of his diaconate; the church took the position that it wasn’t a church issue at all and they were not going to get involved. My outsider’s perspective is that while sex and gender issues get all the attention because they are, well, sexier, many churches have the more basic problem that ethical issues in general have been abandoned, and… Read more »

David
David
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

I agree. Sadly, I agree. However, as you can imagine, I would see these issues as “not only this, but also that” as opposed to “either, or”.

Fair question about that church lacking a moral right-of-way.

If what you are describing is accurate, he should have been disciplined, and the money re-payed (maybe with interest).

Nord357
Nord357
5 years ago
Reply to  David

Biblical discipline seems to require four to seven fold repayment depending on how you value the item taken.

RFB
RFB
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

You have always seemed a little smarter that this…using an isolated data point and trying to create and extrapolate a trend line. Statements like “…I’m…sure there are lots…a lot of those churches…” If a Christian on this board used an argument like that, you would (rightfully) argue against a snapshot and assumptions regarding anecdotal data. Also, being “familiar with” carries a broad set of variables. I am “familiar with” thoracic anatomy at the level of being wrist deep during a resection of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. That is a different familiar than a 9th grade anatomy class. Regarding contentions like… Read more »

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  RFB

I am familiar with the situation because I was approached by the victim’s daughter who sought my help. I decided to try the church route in the hope that they might use moral persuasion to get him to do the right thing. The pastor sent me an email telling me they considered it a matter external to the church but they would pray for us. And no, that’s not the same as a statistical study; data is not the plural of anecdote. But when was the last time you heard of someone getting excommunicated for financial sins? I’ve already responded… Read more »

RFB
RFB
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

Because one specific church does not discipline, either through misfeasance, or by decision after a review of all of the facts (not just one side or the other), does not mean the certain financial dealing are not subject to discipline. Pointing at the one is like pointing at the thief on the cross and arguing for that as normative.

I could just as easily point to Ananias and Sapphira as the normative model for all financial malfeasance, and I would be just as easily wrong.

And “the last time I heard” does not constitute facts in evidence counselor.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  RFB

Oh, it’s as much evidence as Doug citing one lone theology professor from Fuller to make a larger point. If you don’t like the methodology, perhaps you could suggest Doug not do it again in the future.
Do you disagree with my underlying point, that the church has in general abandoned discipline of unethical conduct (not that exceptions can’t be found)?

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  Krychek_2

It is a church matter. He should be removed.

Josh Dockter
Josh Dockter
5 years ago

Great post, Pastor Wilson!

Small correction-*problema not problemo. The Spanish would not say problemo. I do understand the sense in which you used it though! The correction comes from being a Spanish major and a graduate of a Classical Christian School;)

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
5 years ago
Reply to  Josh Dockter

Bart Simpson Spanish.

Ree
Ree
5 years ago

“I always ask the question of christians (and muslims I know) who insist that morality comes from the bible, qur’an and hadith: if you didn’t have your texts to tell you otherwise, would you rape, murder, have sex with animals, rape children etc.?” When I was young and in rebellion against the authority of the God and His Word, I did murder. In fact, I murdered my own child forming inside my own body. So, yes. “If you argue that you would, then that says much about you. I for one would request your bible chained around your neck 24/7… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

One interesting development for SSM I’ve heard is that some employer based insurances will drop coverage for “domestic partners” and require them to be married. I wonder if they’ll get any pushback from those who championed SSM for everybody else.

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

This is the way you guys exacerbate these messes. Why are employers involved at all, even for the employee. Don’t attach health insurance to employment, or retirement savings, or anything. Remunerate for work done.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

This is the way you guys exacerbate these messes.

Oh you have no idea.

Krychek_2
Krychek_2
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

I would support that. Now that gay people can get married, there’s no reason to even have domestic partnerships or civil unions. If you want the benefits of marriage, get married.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago

“It is the final sign of imbecility in a people that it calls cats dogs and describes the sun as the moon—and is very particular about the preciseness of these pseudonyms. To be wrong, and to be carefully wrong, that is the definition of decadence” (G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men). Great quote Doug. Perhaps this would apply to you. Lets see.. being gay–worthy of name calling and making fun, but pedophiles get a free pass when you are in control and just really handling it superbly. Gay –hell. Pedophile–well they said they are sorry and are in full communion.… Read more »

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

That was a rather clumsily made straw man. Please do better next time, thanks.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

I wasn’t clumsy. And it was no strawman to any of us outside Moscow. It’s ok. you drank the kool aid–Ill pray for you, thanks

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

Ah, that’s the best you’ve got. Fair enough. I guess with enemies like these, who needs friends, eh?

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

Actually I am not YOUR enemy. I mean that when I say Ill pray for you. I Do however hold a higher standard for clergy as Timothy clearly lays out.I think most people would just like some repentance and acknowledgement that these travesties occured,be transparent about it, and learn from the heinous mistakes made.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

“Actually I am not YOUR enemy”

*wink*. It was just a play on a figure of speech sunshine.

“I think most people would just like some repentance and acknowledgement that these travesties occured,be transparent about it, and learn from the heinous mistakes made.”

*nods sagely*. Of course dearie, of course. It’ll be okay.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

On the other side of glory it will be. My hope isn’t here, fortunately. I acknowledge the placating and guess that is preferable to blasting, so good day.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

Maybe next time you stop by you could actually engage with Pastor Wilson’s position. You’ll prolly get a lot less sarcasm that way. G’day.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

Believe me, Pastor Wilson, has no interest in what i have to say. I’m just a girl who is not part of his kirk. Ill just continue to pray from afar.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

So you just wanted to drop a couple stink bombs then leave, eh? I guess that’s one way to live your life.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

I have been polite to you sir. You were the only one engaging me. I’m good with how I live my life. I was trying to calm down YOUR sarcasm as you suggested. You didn’t find what i had to say important. That’s fine. To answer your other question, of course it is not in the CREC constitution. I was referring to Christ Church’s undeniable history. If that does not include you, then it was not aimed at you. The best way of determining future outcomes, is to look at past history–that’s what id like to see honestly done. As… Read more »

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

Well don’t let us keep you from your self-appointed tasks such as dropping in to insult another believer.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

I have insulted no one personally . I disagree with your pastor who wields considerable power and an opportunity to do so much good and healing to a broken situation. I take no offense by the words said to me in retaliation . This is what you are taught to do so I understand . I will be more faithful to pray for y’all and will walk away so as not to cause more offense. Not because I just wanted to say something then walk away but because you need love and prayer more. This is a sad situation and… Read more »

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

Au contraire mon ami! You like so many of those, believers and unbelievers alike, have jumped in to not engage, but to trash Doug Wilson on what is a local matter in his church. Then you (and others) have had the audacity to jump up and down that Doug dares actually believe the Gospel, and act like its true. That someone, a repentant sinner who is now free in Christ is free indeed. Were not you and them both saved by the Grace of Christ?

As for my pastor… alas it is not Doug. I live just outside of Baltimore.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Duells Quimby

Actually I’m far more aware of the situation than I am able to say. This issue has reached far and wide and I’ve had to witness some of the severe consequences that that particular sin caused. Again I will say Doug had many opportunities to be completely honest that would’ve eliminated a lot of hurt. I in no way make any assertions of his standing with God. I absolutely believe if we are saved all sins are forgiven. But there are reasons we keep pedophiles away from children. Including repentant ones. The church should have also showed as much love… Read more »

Bob French
Bob French
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

You said: “Actually I’m far more aware of the situation than I am able to say.” I think Pastor Wilson would say the same about his knowledge of the “situation”. You said: “This issue has reached far and wide and I’ve had to witness some of the severe consequences that that particular sin caused.” Please note that it is the “particular sin” which caused the consequences. Not, I think, Pastor Wilson. Christians should accept your statement: “I’m no better than anyone and apologize for conveying differently . I spoke too harsh and for that I am truly sorry and ask… Read more »

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb0Ih0pxV1A

I’m really sorry I couldn’t help it. John Kreese made me do it.

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

Tell him thank you for me

RandMan
RandMan
5 years ago
Reply to  Evan

You ought to try engaging with anyone’s position Evan. At least Elizabeth dares to put herself on the line and say what she thinks. You never do. Just kind of a faker.

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  RandMan

“You ought to try engaging with anyone’s position Evan.”

You’re looking for a position paper? So I can pass your course?

“At least Elizabeth dares to put herself on the line and say what she thinks.”

I’m sure we are all very thankful for that.

“You never do. Just kind of a faker.”

Oh? What else do you claim to know about me?

Evan
Evan
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

” And it was no strawman to any of us outside Moscow.”

Well there’s your trouble right there.

Lance Roberts
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

What’s the point in your praying since you don’t think the forgiveness of Christ is enough for all sinners?

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  Lance Roberts

I do believe that sir

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

These “stink bombs” unintentionally reveal the ignorance and motives of those lobbing them. Elizabeth wrote: Lets see.. being gay–worthy of name calling and making fun, but pedophiles get a free pass when you are in control and just really handling it superbly. Elizabeth seems to be unaware that Wilson has often distinguished those who struggle with same-sex desires, as refugees from the world, and those who demand that we all accept their homosexual behavior as if it were spiritual and noble. The latter are apostles of the world. Wilson aims his serrated edge at the latter, not the former who… Read more »

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I pray all that is true and I will happily say I was incorrect. Peace and blessings

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

Your other comments suggest you are a Christian?

If so, do you not think that repentant sinners get forgiven, and unrepentant sinners are damned?

shawnie
shawnie
5 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

I believe all who are truly in Christ are forgiven all.

bethyada
5 years ago
Reply to  shawnie

I suggest you apply that to your above comment.

Doug clearly distinguishes between the repentant and the unrepentant.

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago

Reading Mr Wilson’s blog reminds me of the joke told in Good Will Hunting. A man visits a therapist and is shown Rorschach cards. Every card that gets flipped the patient says reminds him of sex. The therapist tells the man that clearly he’s obsessed with sex. To that the patient replies, “But you’re the one with the dirty pictures!”. When I read posts like this, weaving through the vitriol and obscure references, I try to maintain an open mind to what is being said. I am a hetero, Christian male happily married to a woman and living in the… Read more »

katecho
katecho
5 years ago

In doing the sensitivity dance, Murphy can’t seem to resist throwing a few of his own stones at Wilson. Sex-obsessed? That’s pretty desperate.

If Murphy is going to talk to us about an “ounce of compassion”, he may want to show us what that looks like by familiarizing himself with the rest of Wilson’s Kingdom ministry before he uses such an uninformed, condemning and judgmental tone against Wilson.

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I’m familiar with Wilson’s ministry. And I’m not throwing stones. Just doing my part to follow the example of Jesus. Do you see Jesus in picking out the taboos and throwing them around an agreeable audience to validate?

katecho
katecho
5 years ago

If Murphy really is familiar with Wilson’s ministry then his attempt to accuse Wilson of being sex-obsessed tells us two things. It tells us that Murphy is not really against throwing stones as he claims. And it tells us that Murphy is a poor shot.

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Cute wordplay. But are you talking to me or about me to others? In all seriousness though, have you considered that what I’m writing is true? What if the Evangelical church is no different than the Biblical Pharisees that Jesus was so quick to rebuke? What if Wilson is wrongly directing his energy and could better use his talents for God’s work?

katecho
katecho
5 years ago

Murphy started out trying to tell us that Wilson is sex obsessed, but now he retreats to the “what if” position. He claimed to be familiar with the scope of Wilson’s ministry but, if he was, then he wouldn’t be asking the “what if” question to those of us who are. Murphy seems to be morphing his accusation into a broad generalization that “the Evangelical church is no different than the Biblical Pharisees”.

What if Murphy is wrongly directing his energy and could better use his time for God’s work?

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

Happy to discuss if you’d like to speak with me. This isn’t a rhetorical contest on display. There are no points. If you care to address me I’m happy to discuss.

Michael Keith Blankenship
Michael Keith Blankenship
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I am not a Doug Wilson fan, but I really enjoy katecho’s posts!

Lance Roberts
5 years ago

Actually, he calls them to Christ and repentance, which is really the only way of building those houses.

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago
Reply to  Lance Roberts

If this is a call to repent he’s really missing the mark on audience.

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago

But no one, and I mean no one, talks/obsesses more about sex than evangelicals.

Obligatory:
http://adam4d.com/obsessed/

Robert A Murphy
Robert A Murphy
5 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Funny.

circuschaser
circuschaser
5 years ago

I’ll take a stab at this. First, I’d suggest that your term “sex-obsessed” is needlessly pejorative and appears to be laden with your preconceptions about the nature of the conflict here, as though it chiefly concerned the cultural taboo of the week/year/decade per se. Second, if you’re willing to grant (from Eph. 5) that human sexuality is primarily a type for (at least one aspect of) the union Christ shares with His bride the Church, then you must concede that deviations from the sexual norms established in Scripture are more than mere taboo costume choices; they are assaults on the… Read more »

Stone Kirk
Stone Kirk
5 years ago

Question for Wilson and his fans. Recently, Wilson said that there are no biblical grounds for refusing to marry a serial child molester to a young lady. His exact words to Rod Dreher were “Don’t I need a verse or something?” Okay. Then where’s the verse in the Bible that says that men shouldn’t go around looking like the guy in the picture above? On what biblical grounds would Wilson deny communion to a man who claimed to be Christian but showed up at church looking like that? What verse says that hermeneutics professors at seminaries shouldn’t look like that… Read more »

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

There’s Deuteronomy 22:5: A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. However, the issue is the agenda of the man who “showed up at church looking like that”. Is he showing up in order to bring his agenda to the church, or is he still bearing the scars of his past in brokenness? Wilson would have no trouble accepting into fellowship the repentant person who is still covered in the tattoos of their past. Wilson preaches of a cleanness… Read more »

Stone Kirk
Stone Kirk
5 years ago
Reply to  katecho

I’ve seen pictures of Reformed preachers wearing kilts, which, to my way of thinking, are women’s skirts. Should they be barred from the Lord’s table by Deut. 22:5? And I also happen to know a few Christian women, both Reformed and non-Reformed, who wear pants. Should they not get communion because they wear men’s clothes? And if pants aren’t men’s clothes, why is a dress classified women’s clothes? Where exactly does the Bible define women’s clothing and men’s clothing? So Deut. 22:5 isn’t much help. Since we “need a verse or something”, please show me the verse that says that… Read more »

katecho
katecho
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

Apparently Scripture verses that speak to this very principle really aren’t the issue for Stone Kirk after all. He wants to have a verse that gives the precise skirt length, or else it doesn’t count. That reveals a lot.

"A" dad
"A" dad
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

Stony, if one has the gams for a kilt (and I do) it’s OK to wear a kilt, regardless of gender.
Kilts are gender neutral garments. (not unlike diapers)

Duells Quimby
Duells Quimby
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

Aren’t you muddying the waters there? A kilt is very distinct from a women’s skirt in design. It is not something that would be interchangeable between the sexes. At least the ones I’ve seen on Scotsmen. My father has Scottish heritage and has a kilt from his clan in its plaid. My mother, who is of partial Irish ancestry has a dress from her side of the family. If either sex wore the other it would be distinguishable at moment. I think the same could be said for Men and Women’s pants. I think you have to go with societies… Read more »

jigawatt
jigawatt
5 years ago
Reply to  Stone Kirk

What verse says that hermeneutics professors at seminaries shouldn’t look like that guy?

The same verse that says they shouldn’t wear a white robe and white hood.