Fattest Snake Dept.
Be careful Pastor Doug, you keep pointing this stuff out, people might actually start believing this gospel thing! My wife has a very dark past and once asked me, what will she say to our son if he wants to know more about her childhood and history? She was very concerned about what he will think of her, now born again and cleansed, but then very much engulfed in a life of shame. By God’s grace I responded, you tell him, if he ever finds himself in so dark a place that he can’t even talk to us about where he’s at and what he’s doing, he can cry out to Jesus just like mommy did. There is something in all of us that is so idolatrously resistant to the idea that Christ only can purchase us and we can never make anything right in and of ourselves, that we all are magnetized to this law trap in our families, churches, and on a national scale. It’s the same thing as saying to my wife, how dare you not be a better wife to me in x, y and z. Don’t you know how bad you were before? Whether these masses loudly demanding all whites pay a steep penalty for their unchristian lawbreaking ever believed the gospel is a fair question, but giving the charitable outlook that they have, when they pressure whites to suffer under penalty for their (and their forbears’) lawbreaking, they have once again forgotten the gospel.
Patrick
Patrick, thank you. Grace goes all the way down.
Pizzagate?
Could you share your thoughts on “Pedogate/Pizzagate”? It has been going around the Internet the last couple years or so. It was the subject of a discussion about so-called “fake news” with the Google CEO at their most recent congressional hearing. It makes me sick even thinking about what is alleged but it also troubles me how quickly people get shadow-banned or kicked off platforms for mentioning anything related to it. There are certainly some outlandish fringe theories around it, but there are also the Podesta emails (specifically from Tamera Luzzato), Tamara’s website, Jeffery Epstein,and James Alefantis’s creepy friends, and his Instagram antics. These seem to get light or no acknowledgement from the press. It seems like when anyone brings it up, they are immediately shouted down and called a “flat-earther,”wearing a tin-foil hat. Thankful for your clear thinking through crazy times.
Joshua
Joshua, I haven’t said anything about it because I am not up on it at all. I only know enough to know (hazily) what is alleged, and also to know that the received wisdom says that it is bogus. But I can say two things. On the one hand, I do believe that there are many in our ruling elites who are capable of such things, and are capable of crushing anyone who wants to bring it all to light. On the other hand, I believe that there are many enemies of the ruling elites who are capable of lying about such things in order to damage or bring down the bad guys. I believe Washington is a dirty town, which means that people live dirty and they also fight dirty. So I just don’t know enough to say anything particular.
Christology Issues:
So if you may humor me the following was my friend’s reaction to your article: “. . . even so ‘orthodox’ a theologian like Doug Wilson gets this point of ‘orthodox Christology’ wrong and does slip into the ‘psychological’ reading of persons. According to the ‘orthodox’ conception Christ does literally have two minds and two wills, the divine and the human, while ironically it is the Nestorians who argued that Christ only has one will. So Jesus is literally a schizophrenic albeit whose minds are perfectly harmonized.”What say you? Personally, I think it would be better to say that Christ is fully God and fully man and just admit that we’re not entirely sure how exactly everything is going on in every aspect of how His two natures interact,especially in regards to the mind/will/etc., and we would be better off not making comments when Scripture does not either. Speaking as someone who once studied philosophy in college (so maybe I’m jaded), I have the suspicion that a lot of the Nestorian debate relied on suspect philosophical assumptions (or at least assumptions Scripture doesn’t address) instead of Scripture itself. I know I threw a good bit at you here, but would like to hear your thoughts.
Geoff
Geoff, I agree with you—there is a tendency among theologians (including even some orthodox ones) to get too far out on the skinny branches. If your friend questioned my orthodoxy simply on the basis of me saying that Jesus wasn’t schizophrenic, that would be an example. I affirm two natures, entirely complete and distinct, united together in one person, which is what Chalcedon requires of me.
Some Lutherans Fire Back:
Re: A Nest of Nestorians? Doug, Fortunately, “our Lutheran brothers” anticipated your objections way back in 1577, in the Formula of Concord. See “The Person of Christ.” There are pages of material here, but I’ll only highlight two paragraphs:
[82] For here you must stand [confess] and say: Wherever Christ according to the divinity is, there He is a natural, divine person, and He is there also naturally and personally, as His conception in His mother’s womb well shows. For if He were to be God’s son, He must, naturally and personally be in His mother’s womb and become man. Now, if He is naturally and personally wherever He is, He must also be man in the same place. For there are not [in Christ] two separate persons, but only one person: wherever it is,there it is the one undivided person; and wherever you can say, Here is God,there you must also say, Then Christ the man is also there. And if you would point out a place where God is, and not the man, the person would already be divided, because I could then say with truth: Here is God who is not man, and who never as yet has become man.
[87] Therefore we regard it as a pernicious error when such majesty is denied to Christ according to His humanity. For thereby the very great consolation is taken from Christians which they have in the aforecited promise concerning the presence and dwelling with them of their Head, King, and High Priest, who has promised them that not only His mere divinity would be with them, which to us poor sinners is as a consuming fire to dry stubble, but that He, He, the man who has spoken with them, who has tried all tribulations in His assumed human nature, and who can therefore have sympathy with us, as with men and His brethren, He will be with us in all our troubles also according to the nature according to which He is our brother and we are flesh of His flesh.
Darin
Darin, thanks. I would have been grievously disappointed in our Lutheran brothers had they not anticipated the objection back in the day. But anticipating is not the same thing as satisfactorily answering. What is outlined above gives a ground for Christ being present “in, with, and under”the consecrated bread, sure enough. But it also places Him in, with, and under the unconsecrated bread equally. And in everything else as well.
Re: Nest of Nestorians “So then, do I confess that Mary is theotokos, God-bearer? I most certainly do—as regards His manhood. This is not a Nestorian reading.” Mary was not the source of his divinity? Of course she wasn’t, as there is no source. But the label speaks to her “bearing” or “bringing forth” his whole person—containing both natures, does it not? Did her womb contain God or did it not? If not, perhaps “Christotokos” would be a more precise label. This is slicing the loaf pretty thin, but you know how the fathers loved to get down in the weeds, amiright! Related thought: Most of us left are mechanics and salesmen. Those who were gifted to labor in doctrine should maybe start work on some kind of bridge. They probably won’t have separate camps for Catholics and Calvinists, and it looks to be a cold minute before we will have the luxury of throwing each other out of cathedrals again.
Joey
Joey, thanks. I simply want to stick close to the way Chalcedon frames it. According to His Deity, Christ is begotten of the Father. According to His manhood—and I capitalize His even when talking about His manhood—Mary was theotokos, God-bearer. So yes, Mary is the God-bearer when we are talking about His humanity.
You should really read the Lutheran Confessions on the subject and then perhaps you wouldn’t construct such poor arguments. I would also encourage you to read the book Lutheranism vs. Calvinism which is the debate that took place between Jakob Andrea and Theodore Beza. It’s one thing to say, I believe this, therefore, I’m not a Nestorian, and then another thing entirely to make applications of Chalcedon that are actually Nestorian. Especially when those who first affirmed Chalcedon would have rejected your understanding of it (which can be seen in the Book of Concord where the testimonies of the Church Fathers are listed).
Andrew
Andrew, thanks for sharing.
Attendance at a Same Sex Ceremony?
I’m a brother in Christ from the Minneapolis area that is greatly enriched by your Blog. I enjoyed your article, “The Sin of Flattening Sins.” I’m struggling with the lack of clear messaging from the elders of my church (Bethlehem Baptist Church Minneapolis MN; John Piper/Jason Meyer) as it relates to how Christians should respond when invited to a doctrine of demons ceremony (sometimes called a wedding associated with a gay mirage). The obvious answers to me are: 1. Attend and intensely and vociferously rebuke the evil proceeds (of course almost nobody will do this). 2. Respectfully, kindly, and discreetly decline attending. I was in a small group setting related to our church which was led by an elder. I suggested it was a sin to attend a doctrine of demons ceremony as a silent participant. The elder, visibly upset with me said, “I wouldn’t go either, but it is a conscience issue which we must respect.” At the same moment a couple of members rolled their eyes at me for suggesting such a thing. While it is recognized that there are a multitude of conscience issues and we have to be careful we don’t impose our convictions on others, I’m inclined to think this scenario is not a conscience issue, that is, it is a sin for a Christian to attend a doctrine of demons ceremony as a silent participant. However, I am willing to recognize that attendance as a silent participant at such an evil proceeding is a conscience issue—a seared conscience. Thus, the strategy for capitulating on this issue by smart evangelicals is to consign the situation to a conscience-issues status. John Piper initially commented to this situation at the Desiring God website during his10/10/13 podcast (episode 191). During it, he presented 5 thorough reasons why a Christian should not attend. However, his recent comments show a minor slippage in that he used the phrase generally a Christian should not attend and that the main focus is not that we should not attend but that we should do what we can to maintain the relationship with the person. You see how that works. I’m curious your thoughts on this. It would be refreshing to know that as it relates to the subject matter you have stated from the pulpit in the most severe way possible (with outstretched arm and finger; flushed red face, and veins popping in your temples and neck) “how dare you think of attending such an evil proceeding!” Please let it be so. God bless,
Doug
Doug, I agree with John Piper that we should not attend, full stop. I also agree that we should do what we can to maintain our personal relationship with people trapped in this sin, but that is only done because we want to help them. If we start attending their ceremonies in silent acquiescence, we are no longer in a position to help–having become part of the problem.
I’ve been through this argument, “all sins are the same,”with churchmen more times than I care to remember. I gave up arguing some time ago. Now I simply ask, if all sins are the same, why does God assign different penalties to different sins throughout the case laws of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy? And leave it at that. In my time I’ve run with the wild bunch and the church bunch both, and I’m afraid I’ve met just about as many idiots in church as I ever did at the beer joint.
James
James, yes. But at the beer joints they can always blame the alcohol.
November Is Still On Our Minds
Just wanted to say that I really appreciated No Quarter November. In fact, I’d say that much of it was some of your best work. Why?Because you’d sworn off qualifications I actually felt your content was even more careful, specific, and powerful. Pretty amazing since I already thought your stuff was extremely accurate, focused, and well-defined. I think it’s time for No Quarter January.
Samuel
Samuel, thanks.
I am extremely thankful for the free e-books. I even broke my Kindle back out! Several I had already purchased and read in the past but several more have moved from my “long list” to my “short list.” Really enjoyed Flags Out Front, Serrated Edge and the short book on Classical Ed. At any rate, I’m currently reading through Standing on the Promises. Thanks for writing and sharing. In the section on Christian Education (Chapter 7, around location 1140), you write: “But what if some Christians do adopt a goal of ‘conquest,’i.e. they want the public school to become tax supported Christian schools? Then such attempts should be resisted for a different reason; God does not assign educational responsibilities to the civil magistrates, even if the magistrates are godly. It is not their area of godly assigned responsibility.” To the greater point here—godly education is not the responsibility of the civil magistrate—thanks for pointing this out. Very astute and not something I had really considered. But I would like to “pick a nit.” It would seem on the surface that if money was attached specifically to a child, and the child’s father could choose to spend that money at any school he thought best, that would be an acceptable means of accomplishing a good goal. When the problem is often a lack of money—there are many people who just cannot afford a good school for their kids—then a system where the money was attached to the kids would work. Or what about “tax credits” for parents of children in private schools (especially if below a certain income bracket)? Do you think these would be acceptable? The main problem seems to be the pragmatic one—a secular government can’t be trusted not to move the goal-posts mid-stream. (I mix metaphors too, you know.)
Nathan
Nathan, if the father is just getting his own tax money back, then why not just cut out the middle man? And if he is getting someone else’s money to educate his kid, then how is that not redistribution of income, or socialism for short? That said, I am open to things like vouchers and tax credits as instruments for dismantling our current system, but not in favor of them in the abstract.
Dalrock?
What is “the Dalrock route?”
Keith
Keith, from what I have seen, I would describe the Dalrock route as over-realized patriarchy. This is not the same thing as extreme patriarchy (the toxic kind), and it is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy. I speak as a man, as Paul might say, and that’s the problem, as RHE might say. Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store (and I agree with Dalrock that many of them did give away the store), did so on purpose. In other words, what they tend to describe as conspiracy, I would describe as a mix of conspiracy from some and confused foolishness from others. This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything. Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.
Regarding the Mohler article: I agree with you as far as forgiveness between races goes, but there is still an unresolved issue. It involves Indians. Certain Indians are allowed to hunt and fish in certain places and times that non Indians can not. It involves Indian treaties. Nothing fires the soul to envy faster than when someone can do something and you are forbidden to do the same.
Is that similar to the envy felt when certain White people have been given enormous tracks of land that used to belong to Indians, and can now do whatever they want on that land while everyone else can’t? Or is it a specially acceptable envy because it involves Native Americans, or because it involves communal rights rather than private rights? What in your mind makes, say, the 270,000 acre Tejon Ranch just, or the 2,200,000 acres owned by John Malone, or the 2 million acres owned by Ted Turner, or any other large private landholdings which afford special rights to… Read more »
It’s a little more complicated than that. How did the owners of vast tracts come by their landholdings? That matters. There is nothing necessarily unBiblical about owners controlling access to their private property – and bias against private ownership of land seems to run contrary to what we read in scripture. However, it does seem unjust to bar only some people from access to commons. Imagine having common land that only Hispanics were allowed to use. Now instead of Hispanic, make it WASPs, and note that category doesn’t even include most European descended Americans, just like Indian tribal land is… Read more »
John M, where are you getting this stuff? It is not correct. The Zuni and Navaho come to mind easily, That being the case, the reaction I have seen show what I mean. Jonathan you are describing more bitterness than envy. In the original treaty with the Nez Perce, Moscow Idaho was on the Nez Perce Reservation. Whites didn’t like that Treaty so, they forced another treaty taking several hundred square miles from them and that is how Whites got the land. All of the work in building the town of Moscow and all its lands is predicated on rewriting… Read more »
Robert, I said several things. Tell me what stuff is not correct, and explain why it is not correct if that is what you believe. The Navaho (Navajo) do indeed come to mind – as an example of exactly what I’m talking about. The Navajo did not enter the lands where their reservation is now located until the 15th century. That may seem like a long time, but they were hardly the first people in the area. The Zuni may have been there longer, but how would we know if they were the first? There are other examples even more… Read more »
Well put. +1 if the system would let me…
Let’s keep it simple. Treaties. We signed them. We dated them. We rewrote them to suit ourselves. Let’s discuss those Indians and their treaties. Let’s remember that the only race the Constitution mentions are Indians and it does so, twice.
Now, how do w teach this long term?
That would be changing the subject, since your original post, and Jonathan’s comment, were about more than simply treaties. Broken treaties are bad – and in the past. However, here is a good article on how the Constitution currently pertains to the question: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-14th-amendments-tortuous-relationship-with-american-indians1 The concept of tribal lands and special tribal rights over public land should have been done away with in 1924. From that time all Indians are, as the ones native born within the U.S. always should have been, understood to be United States citizens. Neither they nor anyone else should think of Indian tribes as sovereign… Read more »
John M. The problem with that argument is that the Constitution specifically refers to Treaties with the Tribes. When the Natives got their citizenship in 1924, that was an act of Congress. An act of Congress can not override something that is written in the Constitution. The government tried to erase the legal standing of the Tribes in the fifties. The court’s wouldn’t let them.
Robert can you point out the specific reference to Treaties with the Tribes in the Constitution? Logically U.S. citizenship would negate tribal status as sovereign nations, rendering moot any question of overriding. I’m not familiar with the court cases, and no, I’m not holding by breath, but law is never permanently settled.
Treaties are based on Article 1Section 8.
Article I Section 8 says nothing about treaties. Article II, Section 2 does, but says nothing about Indian tribes.
1. “How did the owners of vast tracts come by their landholdings? That matters.” That matters, and of course we’d find many instances where it was quite shady, but are you certain that it is the only thing that matters? In light of God’s clear claim to own all of the Earth while we are merely aliens and tenants within it, in light of the Jubilee and the condemnation of those who add houses to houses and fields to fields, are you certain that claiming ownership and absolutely control over vast tracks of God’s land while billions of others have… Read more »
1. “…are you certain that it is the only thing that matters?” Straw man. 2. “…obvious limits in the degree to which owners could control access to their private property” True, and another straw man, and does not negate the point. 3. “I have no bias against private ownership of land”. Glad to hear it. “I have bias against any large tracts of purely private land.” Which appears to be moving the goalpost. But anyway, why? And what is a large tract? 4. Entire paragraph. When all is said and done, either we think race/ethnicity should be a basis for… Read more »
Also just as an aside, I’m not sure that such vast generalizations about the previous inhabitants of the North American continent can be made based on a couple of examples. If Indigenous Americans even had the type of “land claims” you refer to then much of the early White settlement of the land would have looked very different – Europeans were able to get a cooperative early foothold in many places explicitly because Indigenous Americans largely didn’t make the sort of absolute private land claims that the colonists did.
Are you familiar with the Trail of Tears? The Cherokee did make a formal land claim in Georgia. Went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court agreed with the Cherokee. The President at the time, Andrew Jackson said he didn’t care what the Court said and sent the army and forced march most of the Cherokee people from the Southern States to Oklahoma.
It pertains where it pertains, which is in a lot more cases than the couple examples I cited. I agree, Indigenous Americans (awkward, but better than misuse of “native”) generally did not have land claims in the sense we normally use the phrase. That point hardly supports the argument that land was stolen from them.
Someone who built his argument on the claim that I was biased against private ownership of land should not be tossing the phrase “straw man” around so decisively. 1. You had used “How did the owners of vast tracts come by their landholdings?” as your entire response to my complaint about vast tracts of land. That ignores that there are issues with a person claiming exclusive “private” ownership of vast tracts of land besides the mere question of how he came upon it. It also of course ignores how you deal with the fact that many people DID come to… Read more »
No, Jonathan, my argument was not *built* on a claim of bias, but your complaint about large land holdings, and unfavorable comparison of that to communal land holdings, was noted. If you want to claim owners controlling access to their property *is* un-Biblical the burden of proof is on you. You still haven’t defined “large tract of land”, and you haven’t demonstrated how your specific examples would support many families if the holdings were broken up. For example, I’m familiar with where some of Ted Turners holdings are located, and those lands never did and never will support a multitude… Read more »
JohnM wrote:
I imagine that Jonathan didn’t even notice the shape of his own argument, or perhaps, like the SJW progressive, Jonathan simply thinks that reverse ethno-nationalism is justified, because … victim. Either way, good insight from JohnM.
I imagine that Jonathan didn’t even notice the shape of his own argument, or perhaps, like the SJW progressive, Jonathan simply thinks that reverse ethno-nationalism is justified, because … victim. Either way, good insight from JohnM. Katecho, when you recently lied about my past statements on three separate occasions yet were unable to provide the quotes when challenged, I again insisted that you ALWAYS quote me when making claims about my statements, as you so frequently lie about what I have said. I have made that request numerous times and you are still failing to hold your end of the… Read more »
Ah, Jonathan complaining about others lying again? I seem to remember something similar here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/fried-brown-sides.html #210720 “Katecho, your insinuation that I have borne false witness and broken the 9th commandment is ridiculous and you need to apologize for that.” Katecho and others were talking about Jonathan’s instant condemnation of Roy Moore. The nanosecond the news came out, he proclaimed Moore a “child molester.” Who needs due process or Biblical justice standards when we have #metoo? Not long after that, Jonathan’s back was to the wall and he said “I have to apologize. When I looked back at an earlier thread… Read more »
I made one error, over a year ago, and repented for it (and posted that apology in three different relevant threads to ensure that everyone possibly effected could see it, even though the conversation had moved on in two of them). You are not only continuing to try to use that one error against me, but even trying to use my apology against me. Aren’t you explicitly violating the principle Pastor Wilson has just been covering about refusing to accept repentance?
“But in no place is there any offer of actual forgiveness, actually transacted. In no place is the gospel actually applied, efficaciously, to the problem of genuine white sins. And you know why? Because that would result in those sins being, first, forgiven, and secondly, forgotten. Can’t have that.”
No, Jonathan, my argument was not *built* on a claim of bias, but your complaint about large land holdings, and unfavorable comparison of that to communal land holdings, was noted. My complaint about large land holdings was directly based on Scripture, which you have ignored, and I said nothing about communal land holdings. I pointed out to you that land is treated in scripture as a communal asset and not a solely private one. I backed that up with several Scriptural references, which you ignored. If you want to claim owners controlling access to their property *is* un-Biblical the burden… Read more »
I forgot, I was going to affix a list of the specific Biblical passages and principles I was referring to on the bottom of that previous comment. All of Leviticus 25 is the bedrock for the position, framed around Leviticus 25:23. See also Exodus 23:10-11, and Nehemiah 10:31 for an example of the law in action. Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 23:24-25 and Deuteronomy 24:19-22 give additional constraints on the “private” nature of land, as well as specific examples of where access to property could not be denied by “landowners”. Exodus 23:12, Leviticus 16:29, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:14-15 and other similar passages… Read more »
“It pertains where it pertains,” You seem to be taking exceptions as arguments. If you can find a Native American who came upon their land via violence, then it’s fine to ignore all Native American claims to land, if you can hypothesize a White landholder of vast tracks who came upon their land “justly”, then it’s okay to ignore all the rest. In both cases you are dodging the issue entirely. “That point hardly supports the argument that land was stolen from them.” That statement doesn’t carry any water without the assumption that White American-style land claims are the only… Read more »
Read actual history Jonathan, not a romanticized version that whitewashes either Europeans OR American Indians. It is not hard to find a lot more than A “Native American” who came upon their land by violence. It is impossible to paint all the multitude of tribes with one brush. Some, maybe most, didn’t even have the western concept of commons. Such “land claims” as some tribes had was justified by nothing more than being the latest strongest group to arrive at whatever locale they considered desirable, and lasted until they decided they wanted to be some where else, or someone stronger… Read more »
I read a great deal of history, even write some on occasion, and this entire paragraph is nonsensical as placed in our discussion. Again, you keep postulating exceptions as if the existence of an exception allows you to ignore the argument in all other cases. It doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t you try dealing with the actual ethical questions at hand, rather than just pushing exceptions in which you feel you don’t have to deal with them?
Again, you keep calling facts to that do not support your contention exceptions that should be ignored. Why don’t you try providing evidence for what you assert to be the case? Your proof texts that you remembered to affix (as in went back to look for) after first claiming “My complaint about large land holdings was directly based on Scripture” are not that evidence, because they do not address your “complaints about large land holdings” (not that you are biased of course) or Indian’s special exclusive access to communal land based on their race. “The fact that “some” of Ted… Read more »
For a long thread whose origin is about American Tribal fishing rights from treaties, there’s a startling lack of discussion about the actual text of those treaties. With a family member who was heavily involved in the formal debates when these issues were being sorted out here in Washington state, I can say with some confidence that the current fishing laws applied to both the U.S. and the tribes don’t exactly resemble the text of the treaty as it is. Further, that anyone concerned about the environment should be pretty infuriated at the catastrophic destruction of resources in many modern… Read more »
Thanks for the random attack Justin, I’d love for you to point out where I have ever “ignored” anyone’s argument here or elsewhere, or which claim I ever failed to substantiate.
“I’d love for you to point out where I have ever ‘ignored’ anyone’s argument here or elsewhere,”
Elsewhere? How would anyone here know where else you post?
What’s random about the attack? I’m identifying a pattern of behavior, defining it, and suggesting that it is happening right at this moment. It is the opposite of random. I think what you meant to call it was a “surprise”. Though I’m not sure the word attack is accurate, I didn’t make the statement to damage you, I can see how you would interpret it that way. Digging through old threads is not something I find particularly desirable, but since I made the accusation it’s only fair that I back it up. I might not give my full response until… Read more »
I called it “random” because you hadn’t been part of the conversation, and your claim was unsubstantiated, untrue, and had no relation to anything I had said.
It was especially strange in this conversation, because JohnM has consistently ignored every single Biblical support I have given for my argument, while I’ve responded to everything he’s said.
Again, you keep calling facts to that do not support your contention exceptions that should be ignored. This is the line of the argument: Jonathan : Issue X needs to be dealt with. JohnM: But there are cases in which Issue X doesn’t apply Jonathan: But what about the cases where it does apply, don’t those need to be dealt with? JohnM: But there are cases where it doesn’t apply Jonathan: Okay, that granted, will you now answer the question about the cases in which it does apply? JohnM: But there are cases where it doesn’t apply THAT is the… Read more »
When Dalrock takes issue with something you’ve written, he quotes you at length and he gives a clear explanation of the disagreement. He’s challenged you and any of your supporters to show specifically where he has mischaracterized you and defend your position. He has had no takers. It seems like you can’t defend a lot of what you write.
Maybe if he’d called you a great man first?
I gave it a shot for about three days once over at Dalrock’s site. The atmosphere was disappointing – like a food fight, except punctuated by long jeremiads, exhorting me to repent of my cryptofeminism and putative dishonesty (because I wouldn’t admit the cryptofeminism). Those are unusual at food fights in my experience. Whether from paranoia or bad faith, no-one there, Dalrock included, made more than a token attempt to engage the arguments that I made. And anyway, if the definition of feminism includes a reactionary bloke like me – then the term is meaningless. I gave up after a… Read more »
So what specific point of Wilson’s were you trying to defend?
Wilson had adduced, in one of his books, the example of Abigail as a potential model for wives in some circumstances – a kind of “rebellion” that nevertheless seems to be applauded by the divine author of the biblical history. I argued that this was a reasonable point to make, which it is – at worst, if an error, it is an error about a complex matter about which reasonable men could differ.
I think it’s a bad idea to scan scripture for acceptions that can be cited to allow you to circumvent clear and consistent normative instructions but I can’t say it’s never applicable.
Sure, agreed – exceptions have to be exceptional or else you lose the rule. And the norm of Scripture is clear. All that Abigail allows you to say is what most people already kind of allow for most moral laws – it may be necessary to do otherwise in some desperate extremity. Like lying to the Nazis at the door – we are to be people of the truth, yet principle does not impeach Rahab. We are not to work on the Sabbath, yet which of you, says Christ, will not rescue his ass that has fallen before it drowns?… Read more »
Nah, I’m afraid that in the cultural context of the last few hundred years, any appeal to Abigail or Deborah should be crushed. It’s not paranoid but accurate to say that Wilson twists scripture to cuck to feminists. I would just reference more egregious examples than that particular one.
“cuck to feminists” Curious phrase. I thought I understood what “cuck” is generally intended to mean, and I get your overall point, but…”cuck” to feminists? Language evolves, I guess.
As language goes so goes thought and so goes the world. “Cuck” is an inspiring act of linguistic revolution. It says that your moral signaling and and self-abnegation (enforced on me as well) is not admirable. It’s actually a viscerally disgusting dereliction of duty. The term hints at a possibility of breaking free from the Western moral death-spiral.
“As language goes so goes thought and so goes the world.”
Bingo. This has been the genius of the alt-right, and the failure of the traditional conservatives. It is not too much of a stretch to say that they memed themselves into the public consciousness. (Meme as a verb is also very new).
I can’t find the link now, but one analysis I read showed how an absurdly large percentage of the viral memes started in alt-right Reddit threads.
“This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything. Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.” – Doug Wilson
If you desire to be consistent BJ, now is when you need to start telling Wilson that he is actually on the same side as Dalrock, and that Wilson is just misreading him.
See, this is the kind of thing I was talking about. You admitted he was right on the merits “I can’t say it’s never applicable.” Then the next thing you say is “Wilson twists scripture to cuck to feminists.” He isn’t twisting Scripture. He was right. You admitted it. But who has time for exegesis when there are feminists to fight? That is not a compliment.
So Wilson made a good case for God sanctioned rebellion against a husband. Is that a useful message for Wilson’s congregation and the broader culture right now or a capitulation? I argue enough of these things in real time. I don’t think I’ll dredge original material from two different blogs after the fact. I’ll base my criticism on his other posts.
You asked for an example. You just don’t like that this one makes a hash of your larger claim.
But in answer to your question, yes, it is useful. Misuse of Scripture is not rectified by the good guys abusing it in the opposite direction. You respond by reading fairly.
Katecho, is that you?
Here’s Dalrock’s challenge. I don’t see you in the mix.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/11/06/an-invitation-to-pastor-wilsons-defenders/
You’ve got a cut and dried case of fine case of exegesis there, not at all cherry-picked to undermine the consistent message of wifely submission presented throughout the Old and New Testaments. Have at em.
I’m not a frequenter of Dalrock’s blog, so was unaware of his challenge. However, Barnabas is a frequenter of this blog, and he did not respond to my challenge to him here: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/when-writing-letters-dont-lose-your-head.html#comment-220777
I assume that you’ve had a difference of opinion with Doug Wilson at some point. How did your debate with him go?
Underrated comment by Barnabas right there.
The story of Abigail is that of a woman who when put in a difficult position did everything she could to protect the interests of her husband. She was so loyal to that wicked man that she tried her best to protect him even when he was destroying himself. To simply say it gives proof that it is sometimes sanctioned of God to rebel against a husband is to.completely miss the point. Abigail’s heart was not in rebellion as far as we can tell. She was protecting her husband (and succeeded as far as a wife could). Nabal’s sin was… Read more »
Farinata wrote:
Farinata’s description fits my experience at the Dalrock blog to the letter. It was basically identical.
Barnabas wrote: He’s challenged you and any of your supporters to show specifically where he has mischaracterized you and defend your position. He has had no takers. It seems like you can’t defend a lot of what you write. This is false. I had a few interactions on his blog where I corrected a number of misrepresentations that Dalrock engaged in. I was basically shouted down as a closet feminist by what I assume were frequenters there, and Dalrock conveniently sidestepped what I was actually saying. So it’s not that there have been no takers. I just don’t find Dalrock… Read more »
If you’re a regular suburban dad and you send your daughter away to college, because Doug Wilson told you that it would make her a better homeschooler, and she has sex with 10 men over four years then she is by Wilson’s definition damaged by her father and it’s your fault. Normal girls don’t do such things. Girls didn’t do such things, not because of their virtuous nature, but because of centuries of slut-shaming and restrictions on their autonomy. The minute they gained social autonomy and slut-shaming diminished they became promiscuous. It turns out that that social technology existed not… Read more »
You’ve answered your own question. Do you want to know why sensible people don’t want to respond to Dalrock, even when he proclaims a challenge? Look at your own practice just now. You ask for examples and reasonable arguments, and you respond with ludicrous strawman, sarcasm, and insults.
This is precisely why nobody wants to answer Dalrockians according to their folly.
Farinata has expressed my own thoughts very well on Barnabas’s pathetic attempts to misrepresent Wilson. I think Barnabas needs to get a grip and familiarize himself a bit more with Wilson’s positions on this issue of slut shaming. Perhaps Barnabas can start with the article titled “Slut-Shaming and the Gospel”, where Wilson writes: You will be shouted down if you dare to say that there is, um, any significant difference between Melania showing us her booty and Eleanor Roosevelt planting a tree at some university in the Midwest. Wives are wives and wives are off-limits. Yes, that was quite true… Read more »
“and she has sex with 10 men over four years then she is by Wilson’s definition damaged by her father and it’s your fault.”
I find it completely unbelievable that you could honestly misunderstand him that badly.
Katecho, Overall I do not disagree with you here. However, I can see how characterizing a woman’s sexual transgressions a being rooted in insecurity could be understood as painting her the victim. Promiscuity and unfaithfulness on the part of a woman involves desire gratification and egoism, as much so as with a man, even if there are some differences between the desires. Wilson calls it sin, you do, and I do, so we want to be careful how we talk about it so as not to be taken as saying “poor insecure thing”, and imply some man should have done… Read more »
Another example of Dalrock’s misrepresentation of Wilson is listed as the culminating item in his November challenge. In his original post, The unexpected challenge to modern Christian orthodoxy, Dalrock wrote: “Where could such a wife turn to for wise Christian counsel? If she reads Pastor Doug Wilson’s post The Suitor and His Porn she will receive a message that could easily come from Behar at The View; if they argue and she withholds sex, it is her husband’s fault…” However, upon reading Wilson’s post, we see no indication that Wilson thinks the wife is justified in withholding sex. Wilson is… Read more »
You grossly misinterpreted Dalrock’s post. He went through what a lot of advice to women is from people who don’t claim to be Christians. This advice amounts to: Use sex as a weapon. Dalrock then quoted Wilson, who describes a situation where a a wife is using denial of sex as a weapon against a husband. Wilson in his article describes many different ways that this could be the husbands fault. Dalrock’s response was to a specific Wilson article and did not misrepresent that article. I know you are a fangirl but the truth has to be more important than… Read more »
7817 wrote: Dalrock then quoted Wilson, who describes a situation where a a wife is using denial of sex as a weapon against a husband. Wilson in his article describes many different ways that this could be the husbands fault. Wilson did describe a hypothetical situation where a wife is denying sex to her husband, but notice that Wilson made no attempt to justify or excuse the wife in having done so. None. In this situation, Wilson also described the husband as “not treating his wife right” such that *they* quarrel and drift apart. Notice that Wilson includes both the… Read more »
“Wilson did describe a hypothetical situation where a wife is denying sex to her husband, but notice that Wilson made no attempt to justify or excuse the wife in having done so. None.”
This is entirely false. The justification is the finger pointing at the hypothetical man and his faults.
You are a liar Kate.
Another ont who without reason thinks that Katecho is female. A hint, think about Greek words.
Funny how this crops up from time to time. Ms. Kate Cho is evidently a graduate student on a visa and clearly sent from the highest level of Sino-US polit-buro to undermine Christian patriarchy in the US. Or maybe they merely pretend to think this in the hope of annoying Katecho by calling him by a girly name. I ran into that amongst my tenth graders sometimes. Shall we all agree to stipulate that katecho is a Greek verb construction meaning to hold down or to hold fast? Much more troubling to me is “You are a liar, Kate.” Growing… Read more »
From the article: “The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life, and he feels just as entitled as he ever did.” What Kate said: ” Wilson made no attempt to justify or excuse the wife in having done so. None.” Wilson said: “this naturally includes their sex life” NATURALLY. Wilson is justifying denial of sex as a phenomenon that NATURALLY occurs as a result of quarrels in a relationship between husband and wife. For those of… Read more »
Katecho isn’t lying. You just aren’t very good at reading comprehension. Explaining *WHY* an event is triggered is not the same as applying blame. If a man woke up one morning, had an angry phone call with his boss, and stormed out his front door where he promptly gets hit and killed by a bus, you can accurately describe the event as having been caused by his boss’s phone call. That is not the same thing as blaming the boss for the man’s response or the bus driver for failing to stop. Triggering an event does not inherently confer moral… Read more »
7817 wrote: Wilson is justifying denial of sex as a phenomenon that NATURALLY occurs as a result of quarrels in a relationship between husband and wife. For those of you who speak greek but are to slow to grasp what this means, the word “naturally” used in this context means that she is justified in some manner in denying sex. Not even close. Wilson said, “they start to quarrel and drift apart”. This “drifting apart” would “naturally include” the same kind of distance in the marriage bed. The cold shoulder in bed is just an instance of the general “drifting… Read more »
Let’s rephrase it. “They quarreled, and then the wife denied the husband sex? Naturally.” That is justification of the action. From merriam webster: Definition of naturally 1 : by nature : by natural character or ability naturally timid 2 : according to the usual course of things : as might be expected Again, Dalrock’s article was pointing out the similarity between the regular advice of the culture and the advice of Wilson in that particular article. The world says that naturally the unhappy wife should deny sex. Wilson says that it is normal for an unhappy wife to deny her… Read more »
I think what we have here goes beyond reading comprehension problems, but I have no issue with the dictionary in this case. Regarding the word “naturally”, I simply take Webster’s second definition (“according to the usual course of things : as might be expected”). According to the usual course of things, distance in the bedroom corresponds with the general distance created by quarreling between spouses, as might be expected. Neither the distance nor the quarreling are therefore justified. Resembling a fool may follow naturally from continuing to answer a fool according to his folly, but neither the folly nor the… Read more »
Wilson said: “The most common way this happens in marriage is that a man does not treat his wife right, they start to quarrel and drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life, and he feels just as entitled as he ever did.” Kate said: “Wilson is not, in any sense, suggesting that denial of conjugal duties is any more justified or natural than the quarreling that led to it.” Wilson said: ” drift apart, and this naturally includes their sex life” It would be difficult to be more direct than that. Lying about can be plainly read is… Read more »
So…. you’re seriously going to just ignore Kat’s argument about the second definition of naturally, which you yourself posted here? Really?
Come now, this is like getting into a fist fight and stopping halfway through to give your opponent an aluminum bat. If Katecho doesn’t write a page and a half about how this exposes your lack of integrity and by extension the lack of integrity of Dalrockers, it will be an impressive act of mercy.
Kate has not shown any integrity throughout any of this discussion. She hasn’t consistently told the truth about Wilson’s articles or Dalrock’s. There is no reason to expect her to do so in the future. A page and a half of lies would not be an improvement over any of the lies that she has told so far. You have not answered Dalrock’s challenge to Wilson’s defenders either, and I don’t think you can, as no one has so far. Not even the most vocal of his defenders have been willing to do so, not even Wilson himself. It has… Read more »
7817 there is no such person as “Kate.” You are interacting with a gentleman who goes by the handle “katecho.” Please Google the meaning of that Greek word.
He didn’t take the hint before, so I don’t think he will understand now. Or, as mentioned above, he does understand but takes a childish delight in calling the man he argues with “she”.
“Justin, your comparison is completely illegitimate. In your example the employee is a complete victim. In reality a better comparison would be if an employee had a phone call with his boss where he was undeservedly chewed out, then went to work but refused to do anything as revenge.” All you’re doing is admitting you didn’t understand the purpose of the comparison. It doesn’t matter if the employee was vengeful, lustful, or secretly an alien from the planet Yardrat. The purpose of the hypothetical was to show causation without moral fault. It did that just fine. If the hypothetical was… Read more »
Justin:
The purpose of the comparison was to muddy the issue. You have learned well how to do so around here, but as previously stated, the comparison was an illigitemate one, and dishonest in its divergence from similarity to the situation.
You can’t defend against the fact that Wilson justified denial of sex, and are using pedantic points to try to cover this up.
Kate is actually better at this than you, as your squid ink is easily dispersed.
“The purpose of the comparison was to muddy the issue. ” I would be very interested in what evidence you can present about the “purpose” of my comparison, and in the lack of evidence I would be very interested to see how you justify this statement Biblically. ” the comparison was an illigitemate one, and dishonest in its divergence from similarity to the situation.” You’re being blatantly dishonest in simply ignoring my response. We can take it as accepted that the man on the phone was vengeful in response. It makes no difference to the point that was being made.… Read more »
Where you been?
[…] from Keith which asked him to define what he means by “The Dalrock Route”. (Scroll waaay down this page, or do a page search for “Dalrock”.) In a long overdue response, Wilson […]