A number of months ago I received a very gracious invitation to speak at the Q conference, this year to be held in Denver. I wrote back, saying that I was interested, but mentioned that they might want to google my name or something — for not everyone in their circles thinks I am wonderful. One assumes they did their due diligence because the invitation remained on the table, and so I attended the conference late last week.
The organizers were competent, gracious, organized, helpful, and really impressive. Because the talks are so short, there are far more moving parts than most conferences have, and their administrative skills were really of a high order. I appreciated their willingness to have someone like me come and say a few words (about gun ownership as a civic virtue), with those words presented alongside the words of Preston Sprinkle, an advocate of Christian non-violence who spoke right after me. You know, a both sides presented sort of thing.
Incidentally, Preston and I had a great time visiting beforehand, and I really enjoyed our interaction on stage. Sometime in the next few days, I hope to answer a challenge that he mounted on Luke 22:36-38, where he said that all the commentaries were against me. That was one solid point he raised that we didn’t get to deal with because of time.
In the meantime, it turns out that a number of people didn’t read their conference info beforehand very carefully, because there was only the occasional squawk running up to the conference. But once the event hit, and there I was, so to speak, Twitter sprang into action, doing what Twitter does best, which is to yell.
What did I think of the other talks? Some were impressive (Kevin Kelly), some were beyond magnificent (Brian and Julie Mavis), and some were economically illiterate harangues (Adam Thomason). In short, if it had anything to do with gender, it was a compromised muddle, and if it had anything to do with race, the speakers were presented with a small lake of assembled white guilt, and invited to churn around on it in their respective paddle boats.
As I also noted the other day, there is nothing whiter than white guilt. The one racial stereotype that is still invisible to most everyone these days is the highly choreographed dance of guilt management. But guilt dances, and virtue-signaling, and propitiatory preening deal with nothing effectively.
And at the end of the day, the whole thing collapses — for example, white supremacy was defined from the stage in such a generic and ubiquitous way that it wasn’t even a sin anymore. And although they didn’t mean to create that way of escape, they most certainly did. Talk about letting us off easy . . .
All that said, Q Denver really did have a range of speakers across a wide spectrum. I commend them for being more consistent in their commitments than some of their fans apparently are, and I thank them again for the invitation.
I only saw Jonathan Merritt’s reporting from the event, so my understanding is that you were primarily there to advocate for the state executions of LGBT’s.
Which he’s done many times. He’s like Theodore Shoebat with a blue check mark.
Yeah, no. Don’t be dumb.
Unless you’re being sarcastic, as I was, in which case, well done.
Not being sarcastic in the slightest which is all the more horrifying. Wilson said, in a society where Christianity is the state religion and we abide by biblical law, executing homosexuals would be totally permissible. Same stance of Theodore Shoebat only dressed up a little better.
Have you ever heard the term “hypothetical situation?”
And are you fully aware that there is a difference between “explicating the fullness of a hypothetical situation” and “advocating for something to be done”?
This “hypothetical situation” is something Wilson ADVOCATES for, like Theodore Shoebat. They follow the bible to the word.
Hypothetically, you’d much rather all dudes go gay, hypothetically?
Consider adjusting what you get horrified by.
There’s nothing more objective than a shrill and catty homosexual who
projects his deep-seated unorthodoxy into almost everything he writes.
Since you spoke at the conference can you help me understand where in scripture “Christians are called to redeem entire cultures, not just individuals.” is found? Or maybe how their 7 Channels differ from the NAR 7 mountains? (http://qideas.org/about/). Do you feel that your presence there served to legitimize Gabe’s group/theology? I seek not to condemn but to clarify why you would choose to participate in something like this.
Paul at the Areopagus.
Jesus on the earth?
Psalm 2.
Who is redeeming? Christians or Christ? I read vs 7 as clearly being about Jesus…”My Son”…”begotten You”. I do not see Psalm 2 as a command for Christians to redeem entire cultures.
“Who is redeeming? Christians or Christ?” Christ is, by and through His church, “the Body of Christ”. Just like when you change a flat tire, you are doing it, even though it is you arms, hands, back, legs, etc, that are the functional parts. “there came One like a son of man, and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one… Read more »
^^^ What RFB said ^^^. Scott attempted a atomizing division of sorts, and RFB brought it all back down to earth.
Redeem only those you love.
Like Obama’s pals in Saudi Arabia
Doug, Q is an ostensibly Christian conference devoted to education: Q was birthed out of Gabe Lyons’ vision to see Christians, especially leaders, recover a vision for their historic responsibility to renew and restore cultures. Inspired by Chuck Colson’s statement, “Christians are called to redeem entire cultures, not just individuals,” Gabe set out to reintroduce Christians to what had seemed missing in recent decades from an American expression of Christian faithfulness; valuing both personal and cultural renewal, not one over the other. Re-educating Christians to this orthodox and unifying concept has become central to the vision of Q. Isn’t educating… Read more »
“Doesn’t the Bible say that women aren’t allowed to teach men?”
The context of all of those passages is the LOCAL CHURCH. Meh…
The context of all of those passages is the LOCAL CHURCH. Meh…
So women can teach hermeneutics, doctrine, homiletics, church history, apologetics, cultural engagement, etc., at seminaries?
Fascinating!
Don’t tell 40 ACRES about Priscilla.
The problem is not in a woman teaching a man, per se. The problem is in a woman exercising spiritual authority over men. From the example of Priscilla, I would dare to say that even sound doctrine can be taught from a position of deference that does not attempt to exercise spiritual authority. Men and women discuss theological issues on blogs all the time, for example. But for a man to sit at the feet of a woman as pastor over him to give a spiritual account for him is disgraceful.
Exactly.
Women aren’t allowed to be pastors or ruling elders, but there’s no reason at all they shouldn’t be teaching doctrine, history, apologetics, cultural engagement, etc., at seminaries.
Because Priscilla.
40 ACRES’ sarcasm is noted, but it doesn’t seem very well thought out. Take his example of history. It was the women who related the discovery of the empty tomb to the disciples. They were instructed to do so by an angel. Should they have refused the angel because women aren’t allowed to relate a history of events to men? Are professional historians barred from interviewing women to record their memory of important historical events? 40 ACRES’ struggle seems to be that he can only imagine doctrine and apologetics to be within the realm of the professional. He seems to… Read more »
I’m not suggesting that women should actively pursue professional careers in fields that would ordinarily place them as authority figures over men, especially not in fields like theology, law, politics, etc. That’s neither here nor there. I’ve never said Judeochristians don’t love speaking in weasel words. They do. And that’s what you’re doing here. What’s important is that you won’t say they shouldn’t. What kind of a father would someone be if, while he “didn’t suggest that his kids should play in the street”, he did nothing to prevent his children from doing so, and criticized anyone who said they… Read more »
I affirm Paul’s instruction against women teaching in authority over men, and I’ve bounded the problem in such a way that it accounts for Priscilla’s doctrinal instruction of Apollos without Priscilla having to become his spiritual authority, and it allows for the women who encountered the risen Jesus to relate the history of that discovery to the disciples, and it allows for Deborah as a judge in Israel as a disgrace on the men of Israel. I have not seen 40 ACRES describe his position in a way that allows for those examples. This is what leads me to suspect… Read more »
I did not say that women should be professors in the seminaries, Yeah. We already covered that. You keep insisting that you’re not saying that women should be professors at seminaries. But you refuse to say they shouldn’t be professors at seminaries. What kind of a father would someone be if, while he “didn’t suggest that kids should play in the street”, he did nothing to prevent his children from doing so, and criticized anyone who said they shouldn’t? Ever heard a politician “suggest that women should get abortions” ? Yeah, me neither. They say they’re “pro-choice.” But what do… Read more »
40 ACRES is riding a pretty high horse for someone who has yet to respond to my challenge to him to account for Priscilla instructing Apollos. Now I certainly hold that Priscilla was not teaching in a manner contradictory to Paul’s command in 1Tim 2:12, and I’ve explained the principle that allows me to make that distinction. Rather than interact with this, or even pose an alternate principle, 40 ACRES just continues to pound the table by resurrecting his earlier accusation. Only notice that, now, he doesn’t press me about women teaching in a seminary, but against women being professors… Read more »
40 ACRES wrote:
Unfortunately, I did hear about Fiorina. That move has significantly damaged Cruz’s viability in my view, and not simply because Fiorina is a woman.
“Don’t tell 40 ACRES about Priscilla.”
It’s Priscilla and Aquilla so I wouldn’t use her as a good example for women instructors. Deborah would be a better counter example. Unless ACRES wants to rebuke Priscilla for assiting Aquilla in instructing Apollos.
Isn’t the seminary an institution that serves as a preparatory function of the Church?
Exactly. As you pointed out, it’s only forbidden for women to teach men in the LOCAL CHURCH.
A seminary is not the local church.
It’s a place where teachers give educational lectures.
Sort of like an extended Q conference, which was created to educate Christians and prepare them to better engage with the culture.
So there’s no problem with women teaching at seminaries, by your own standard.
If you are hell bent on finding division where there is none, funny thing is, you’ll find it.
I’m finding division where there is none?
So the Bible doesn’t say a woman is forbidden to teach men?
Fascinating!
Again, context matters.
I see no reason to be lectured about this subject by an anonymous person who may be male or may be female.
That’s cool.
Also, while it may seem at times that every other person commenting on here is a fishwife or a termagant, I’m a dude.
“I’m a dude”
Like in the big Lebowski?
How would you define termagant and fishwife? Do you mean women whose views differ from yours, or women who express their views with insufficient modesty and deference? And wouldn’t it be dull to discuss these issues with women whose only response is, How clever you are, 40 Acres? How do you interpret the text about women not teaching men? I don’t think that a woman lecturing a mixed audience on, for example, biblical archeology is automatically exercising authority over her listeners. Even if she is teaching a course and handing out grades, that is intellectual authority, not spiritual. Would you… Read more »
How would you define termagant
Well, it’s difficult to give a precise definition.
But one big tip-off is if they refer to Proverbs 31 a lot when discussing the proper role of women in society, but never bring up Titus 2:5 or 1 Timothy 5:14.
And if any man is hateful enough to actually mention Titus 2:5 or 1 Timothy 5:14, they refer him back to Proverbs 31, and imply that you’d have to be some kind of simpleton to not understand that Proverbs 31 obviously renders these passages null and void.
Hope that helps.
What do you think about Cruz’s VP pick?
I agree with Conservative Pundit:
Fingers crossed for Fiorina as VP pick! She’ll fill in key gaps on the Cruz ticket, like private sector experience and a masculine jawline.
https://twitter.com/DemsRRealRacist/status/725349218534100992
Cruz picking a female running mate shows that he is anything but a traditionalist when it comes to moral values. America did pretty well when its leaders were exclusively white heterosexual gentile males. Since we became “inclusive”, not so much. But for all of Cruz’s so called brilliance, he hasn’t noticed this glaringly obvious fact. And, while he thinks he’s being bold and innovative, he’s simply copying the left-wing radical Walter Mondale, the first candidate to select a woman as his VP. But if Cruz were to somehow get the nomination, I think the Cruz/Fiorina ticket would set a precedent.… Read more »
Cruz picking a female running mate shows that he is anything but a traditionalist when it comes to moral values. <—This Fiorina has been all too happy to play the woman card and the "my girlz got my back," showing that she's more than willing to use leftist liberal tactics to climb her way to the top of the "conservative" ladder. And Cruz evidently is A-OK with that. I bet he blames Trump for last night's protest and destruction of police property (you know, like before), joining the choirs of leftists in harmony in deriding Trump's "hate" speech. Hate Trump… Read more »
D.W.: “In short, if it had anything to do with gender, it was a compromised muddle, ….”
That muddle *starts* with using the leftist/feminist/po-mo-ist term ‘gender’, don’t you think?
Yes.
If anyone else but Doug had used the term that way on here, several people would have already corrected him.
But would they have scolded him cynically, with a proud sectarian attitude, or would they have offered a friendly correction? There are serious warnings in Scripture about biting and devouring those who should be our closest allies.
Of course I’m not saying there is no place for a serrated edge, but we need to learn who our friends are, and who is not opposing our agenda. That’s a necessary skill in any battle.
I’m always wary of those folks who cannot find a hill they wouldn’t die on.
I would think that a pattern and attitude of sectarian sniping would be a greater concern than occasionally using the term “gender” rather than the preferred term “sex”. Ironically, I know the distinction that Ilion is referring to because of a conference that Wilson hosted years ago. Imagine that. But apparently Wilson is to be scolded, as proof that we love God and perfection more than unity. Cynicism toward those who should be our closest allies is a poor testimony.
But both words exist. Isn’t the issue that they should mean the same thing, not different things?
The issue is that the word gender properly only referred to a grammatical category that has a tenuous relationship to the idea of the male-female sexual binary. In the 20th century, it was co-opted by academics and activists in order to have two different words that mean two different things. So it would be better not to use the word at all, because it doesn’t properly refer to real categories at all, but I don’t make an issue of it. Some battles are not worth fighting in the context of the larger war. Though sometimes, it is right to point… Read more »
Doug, Michelle Higgins was one of the teachers at the conference. http://qideas.org/denver/speakers/ She’s the wife of Mike Higgins, the Dean of Students at Covenant Seminary. She’s also the “Director of Worship” (which I’m sure a lot of sexists would say sounds like a “man’s job”) at South City Church in St. Louis, where her husband is the pastor. Not long ago, Mike and Michelle Higgins and South City Church invited a well known abortion rights activist to preach at their church. As far as I know, South City it’s one of the few PCA churches in the country to allow… Read more »
Here’s the abortion rights activist William Barber preaching at South City Church, where Doug’s co-speaker at Q, Michelle Higgins, is Worship Director, and her husband is pastor.
http://www.southcitychurch.com/conferencesevents/3444/
Here he is getting an award from Planned Parenthood for his efforts to keep abortion legal. Rev. Barber calls the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, “My sister.”
https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/naacp-leader-receives-award-from-eugenics-founded-planned-parenthood/
40 ACRES wrote:
40 ACRES forgot to ask whether or not Doug has stopped beating his wife.
Seriously, what is with all of these gotcha questions? Is 40 ACRES completely ignorant of Wilson’s outspoken stance on the broader subject of abortion, and Planned Parenthood, and feminism in the church?
If 40 ACRES spent half this much of his time and effort in confronting actual enemies of Christ, think how much greater his reward might be. He seems to be wasting his talents engaging in friendly fire.