The issue before us in the midst of this cultural meltdown of ours is not how many bad things happen to how many Christians. That kind of thing happens far too much, and it is a problem in its own right. But it is not THE problem. The problem is the docility or tractability of the bystanders.
The difficulty is not that someone does x, the problem is that someone does x in the broad light of day with lots of people watching and nothing happens after that.
Let me illustrate with an outlandish example. Suppose you have 101 people standing on the right side of the stage, standing there quietly. Then suppose a petty little tyrant comes out to center stage. He is four foot eleven, with tall shiny boots, and a big hat for compensation. He is a fighting bantam, a cock-a-whoop despot. He starts berating the 101 citizens, and then announces that 1 person out of the 101 will be taken off stage and summarily executed. The rest can go home, can return to their normal lives.
Let us say he does it. He keeps his word. One person is executed, and the rest go home. What has the despot done? What is he guilty of? Well, of course he is guilty of murder. We all see that. But if we have our wits about us, we see two crimes and not one. Yes, certainly, he has murdered a man. But he has also castrated 100 men. In fact, such a castration was the whole point. The murder was simply the tool or instrument used to accomplish what he had in mind.
Examples happen too rapidly to be able to keep decent track anymore, but let me give you just one. The gummint, in divers places and ways, is now telling a gobsmacked country that if a teenage boy says that he feels like a girl, then he should get the privilege of showering with all the girls after PE. Justice demands it. Nothing is worse than the specter of discrimination arising in our nation again. Well, I would say the specter of teenage boys showering with the girls, on the basis of a demented ideology, should come close.
The immediate problem is not that certain people in the LGBTVWXS community are in the grip of an idea, or are in fact being throttled by it. We kind of expect that any more. The problem is that they can be doing this, and millions of Christians will still keep their kids in the government school.
Remember what they are doing to the one. But keep in mind why they do such things to the one. Keep in mind their plans for the one hundred.
We need to go back to a more fundamental question; that is, even if government schools had morals in line with scripture, does government have the duty or the right to fashion and shape worldview? I would certainly not approve of a church punishing criminals, even if it did so with acute justice. If I’m not happy when the Church takes the states job, why would I be okay when the government takes the church’s job, simply because their ideals are in line with mine?
The question is not whether the government has the duty or right to fashion and shape worldview. The question is what worldview the government will fashion and shape.
That’s a good question, but I am less interested at what the cock-a-whoop despot is doing than what the 100 are not doing. The Shepherd left the 99 to search for the 1.
A Christian world view is cultivated in our homes and churches. Change will come not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
The focus should be the ~3% who historically take matters into their own hands. Amazingly, the number is consistent with a Biblical account–the one where you chose based on how they drank their water from the stream. The first American revolution was fought with ~3% and led by a general renowned for his prayer.
I don’t think it’s that clear-cut. Constantine is a good example of change coming from the top down. (In the context of the faithful witness of the church, to be sure. But not any sort of popular political movement.)
I meant the change necessary to combat cock-a-whoop despots, but your point is well taken.
Cruz 2016
The government has a worldview, but to give them the role of educating, informing the coming generations of the nature of reality, and to be okay with that and not resist that is to assume the Church has no right to her own duties. And to just assume it will happen if the church does it’s job… many can’t afford to both pay for the profane education and also invest, as is their duty, in a sacred one.
Luke makes a very important distinction. Even if the government produced model students, with Scriptural knowledge and faith, they would still be doing so outside of their proper jurisdiction. The goal is not to reform the government education system, but to put the responsibility for education and charity back in their rightful jurisdictions.
If this wasn’t exactly the case, one could almost imagine a Mr. Burns in the wings saying”Excellent!!”
Smithers got Mr. Burns to stop doing that. ; -)
“The gummint, in divers places and ways, is now telling a gobsmacked country that if a teenage boy says that he feels like a girl, then he should get the privilege of showering with all the girls after PE. Justice demands it. Nothing is worse than the specter of discrimination arising in our nation again. Well, I would say the specter of teenage boys showering with the girls, on the basis of a demented ideology, should come close.” Which is crazier – the government telling schools to let teen boys and girls shower together, or a minister conducting and blessing… Read more »
Stoney boo boo, Who Ordains marraige? (Hint, it’s not you.)
Stone, your question amounts to this. Having disapproved of a man’s illicit sexual activities, to the extent of requiring him to bust himself for every offense he ever committed, with a possibility of life in jail for doing so, how dare I approve of a lawful sexual relationship for that man? But I don’t think disapproving of crimes requires me to disapprove of things that are not crimes. But maybe that’s just me.
So no, I didn’t bring this up at Bloomington. Not even that crowd was that irrational.
What kind of a minister sugarcoats the rape/molestation of several children and toddlers as “illicit sexual activities”?
And then is always talking about how fearless and un-PC he is, who’s always in the middle of a controversy because he calls a spade a spade, and refuses to parse his language in order to minimize the wickedness of sin?
What kind of a minister sugarcoats the rape/molestation of several children and toddlers as “illicit sexual activities”?
Doug does not sugar-coat sin and your quoted phrase is not a ‘sugar-quote’.
Stoney boo boo,
il·lic·itadjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom.
“illicit drugs”
synonyms:illegal, unlawful, illegitimate, criminal, felonious;
Find out what words actually mean, before you try to use them. In the mean time, silence would be a good idea for you.
A few obvious rights, doesn’t excuse your obvious wrong.
And of course you didn’t bring that up at Bloomington. You would have gotten rightfully pilloried.
Your fallback to “how dare I?! The law is how!” is a typically slithery out considering your disdain for the law where you see fit.
Which law?
Well he doesn’t really commit there does he? My point.
Dude if you wanna spend your life hounding some guy on a blog about something he did, go for it. Its your life.
It’s my life? No, it isn’t. It belongs to the Big Man Upstairs. And he’ll use it as he sees fit.
Yes, He will. And remember: He also used the Assyrians, Babylonians, Amalekites, Romans, and some murderous Jews, all to accomplish His plan.
Just because you’re a tool doesn’t mean you’re a good one.
It’s questions like these that really make Doug’s point for him about the strategies of the accusation industry. I’m closer in agreement with Tim Bayly’s critique of everything, but behold the perceived power of the worldly accusation: As long as the accusation stands, the accused is not allowed to speak on any topic even tangentially related. Weaponized ad hominem.
Stone Kirk wrote: Which is crazier – the government telling schools to let teen boys and girls shower together, or a minister conducting and blessing the wedding ceremony of a man who has raped/molested several toddlers and small children? I can top both of those. What about a minister who conducts and blesses the wedding ceremony of a woman who has aborted several unborn and small children? Is it crazier still? I suspect Stone won’t bother to thoroughly respond to this question, because it might reveal that his outrage has less to do with the principle of justice, and more… Read more »
Kind of makes us all want to have a nice dinner, huh?
As long as grace is said at the meal.
Not entirely on topic, but how did we get from
“Suppose you have 101 people standing on the right side of the stage,”
to
“Yes, certainly, he has murdered a man. But he has also castrated 100 men.”
“People” = “men”?
I read “101 people” and I pictured a bunch of folks evenly split between men and boys, and women and girls.
L’,
I take Wilson’s math to be: “men” = Mankind.
For example:
Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward “men”.
After that, men / mankind, you and me, have God Ordained obilgations to justice that we should pursue, especially if we expect justice for ourselves.
For you, me and others, even commenting on this blog is about understanding justice, and at times, speaking for it at least.
“A”, I did take it to be that, until I read him talking about 100 people and then turning that into 100 men. It’s sloppy language, and IMO sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. If you routinely use the terms “people” and “men” interchangeably, that supports thinking of adult males as the standard human, and children and women being flawed or incomplete deviations from the standard. Best, if you literally mean “adult human males”, to SAY “men” and not “people” from the beginning. And if you mean “people of various ages and both sexes,” then say “people” and not “men”.… Read more »
L’, while unity in understanding is a good thing, we don’t have to understand some things exactly the same way, to have a good understanding. My understanding “works”. Your understanding “works”.
Wilson could be preffering the use of the word “men” here, to mean “males”, as he advocates that males should be leading on such things, even as all genders and all age groups have a role in justice and society.
His principle is correct, regardless of who the players might be.
Glad to speak with you though. Seems like we often come to an understanding. ; – )
…And looking at DW’s reply to Stone Kirk shows where this mindset might take you. “Having disapproved of a man’s illicit sexual activities, to the extent of requiring him to bust himself for every offense he ever committed, with a possibility of life in jail for doing so, how dare I approve of a lawful sexual relationship for that man?” There actually was a woman involved in this marriage as well. Another full-formed, three dimensional human being, with her own life to live, who looked to her pastor for wisdom and guidance. But if “people” = “men” and “men” =… Read more »
Laura, your description of that situation and how it all happened underscores a key aspect of your narrative, viz. you weren’t there and you don’t know what you are talking about. Your reconstruction of the events is an exercise in creative writing.
I’m going by what you said.
Did you consider the marriage to be in Katie’s best interest? Did you consider Katie’s welfare at all? You don’t ever talk about that. All you really talk about is the man and what was best for him.
From what I understand, Katie approached an elder in your church and asked him to introduce her to someone she could marry and have a family with, and that is how she met Sitler. Do you all just wash your hands now? “Katie knew the score,” you said.
Laura wrote: Did you consider the marriage to be in Katie’s best interest? Did you consider Katie’s welfare at all? Laura seems to vacillate between asking what she needs to know, and simply telling us what she wants us to believe about Wilson without knowing the details. She seems, not only to want to believe the worst about Wilson, but wants us to believe the worst about him too, yet without knowing the answer to her questions. Are those questions really then relevant to her disdain? She demands to pry into this issue to know how Wilson conducted himself. But… Read more »
Again with the incompetent mindreading. I read about the Sitler situation, and the Wight situation, before I ever offered the first comment about it. What I saw over and over about the Sitlers was what Steven needed and about his remorse, and so on and so on. Maybe DW didn’t consider that he was Katie’s pastor and therefore her wellbeing wasn’t his responsibility. Maybe he thought long and hard about her wellbeing and talked to her sternly about her very possible future as a single mother if she married Steven. All I have to go on is what he says,… Read more »
Laura pretends that she has done her homework because she read all the dirt she could find on the internet. But if her homework is complete, why is she still asking what Wilson did with regard to Katie? Do the answers even matter? If they don’t, why is she asking for them? If they do, then why has she convicted Wilson without having them? Finally, who does Laura think she is to demand that Wilson divulge all of his private counsel, to private people, in a private relationship? Laura seems to be on a witch hunt. Laura needs to mind… Read more »
LOL
Have you gone on your 10 mile hike yet?
You really need to change things up it appears.
Something clearly isn’t working for you.
L’, one thought that might help. Our God, somehow manages to love the unlovely, like me and you for instance. Our God expects us to love the unlovely, as we have been loved.
Boy, that Sitler guy shure is ugly huh? We can judge him, as is our “right”, and not forgive, even though he did not do anything to us personally.
But somehow it sounds like someone, his wife, loves him. Rather than being concerned about Mrs. Sitler’s wellbeing, I am more inclined to admire her ability to love.
‘Bet Mr. Sitler does too.
I hope he does. I hope it’s enough. I hope she’s a strong woman, because she has got a lot on her plate.
John 17:8-10
9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine.And glory has come to me through them.
L’, like you and me, by themselves, they don’t have enough, but if they Love like their Lord does that will be good. We might talk less about them and instead pray more for them. Good thing they are not in our hands, but Gods.
Almost all of her writing on here is creative.
“There actually was a woman involved in this marriage as well. Another full-formed, three dimensional human being, with her own life to live” Maybe Mrs. Laura should assume that Mrs. Katie isn’t a child and that she chose to marry the man with the full knowledge of everything. If I were Mrs. Katie I would be much more insulted by Mrs. Laura’s remarks than I would by Pr. Wilson’s morphing of people to men (which a charitable reading would simply view it as further specifying the example since you know men are people too /grin).
From my understanding, women in DW’s church are encouraged to look to the male leadership for advice and counsel. Not so? And that being the case, the male leadership needs to step up and actually take the women’s side and have their best interest at heart. It’s my understanding that Katie asked an elder in that church to help her find a suitable husband, and that this wasn’t considered to be an unusual request in this patriarchal church. If the women in DW’s church were encouraged to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their lives, then… Read more »
I too picked upon that, Laura. It’s hard to feel much empathy for “100 castrated men,” when it is women will bear the brunt of their lack of leadership and failure to protect. Ouch, that is harsh truth and a heavy accusation to make, but men do tend to fear being, uh, relieved of their masculinity, while women tend to fear…death. I suppose I should not complain, but we’ve got metaphorical castration, distressed teen age boys, and little or no concern or compassion for the girls who now get to shower with these lost boys, who now get to marry… Read more »
…to softly quote Joe Walsh’s “Life’s Been Good”, I can’t complain but sometimes I still do, life’s been good to me so far…
Any women among the 100 would be just as castrated, I don’t think making the metaphore complety masculine hurts it in the least.
Just as castrated?? That’s an even worse metaphor.
You can’t castrate a woman.
And of course you don’t think so.
Not literally but figurativly yes you can.
Oh, please do explain why you would use a term that means removal of testicles if you are really talking about men AND women.
In the same way Peter can tell us to “gird up the loins of our minds” so that we can set our hope fully on the grace that will be brought to us at the revelation of Jesus Christ. This instruction is not only intended for men, though it makes use of a masculine metaphor.
So DW was, in your view, picturing a crowd half composed of women when he said “a hundred men were castrated”?
I frankly doubt it.
I don’t have any view of what Doug was picturing in his mind. I only answered your question. His words obviously mean metaphorical castration.
I agree that he didn’t mean the men had their physical testicles removed. I still say that if he meant both men and women, he’s the only person I’ve EVER read who used the term “castrated men” to mean women who … well … have been emasculated?
I agree that not many writers would instruct women to gird up their loins, but I’m not interested in giving writing advice to those who do.
OK, OK, the 50 women on the stage had the starch taken out of their petticoats. Fixed it for ya.
And some people complain about “literal” too much. ;).
That would be fine.
Suppose that DW had started out talking about 101 people, and citizens, and then said the short dictator murdered one woman and left a hundred women with the starch taken out of their petticoats? How would you understand that?
no, on second thought, I had a poor answer
now you’re making me reconsider the answer I just a moment deleted as too harsh.
softer version of what I just deleted – – you’re off on a Politically Correct rabbit trail. “men” does indeed equal “people” in this context, and if you weren’t veering off into to weeds a la Elwood P Dowd (Harvey) over-reading conventions as literal things . . . .
anyway but for your rabbit trail, none of us would have to be dealing with de-starched petticoats.
late, long day on tap, signing off
If “women” and “people” were used interchangeably, you’d see my point. I think if you tried you could see it now.
I love Harvey. That little “Hello, Mr. Dowd” story about how they met cracks me up every time. But I live in the real world.
I do see your point. I also see that you’re just a kinder, gentler variant of the screamer in the video higher up
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426765/video-what-social-justice-warrior-looks-david-French
kmh
Is your problem with her that she screams in the man’s face? Because I’m not screaming.
Or is it that she has a point of view with which you don’t agree? Because surely you can tolerate people seeing things differently than you do.
Tell me, how do you see that I am a variant of that person?
You’re as politically correct as she is, merely at a lower volume and without the crude language. But you two are “sisters in the struggle.” Your whole rabbit trail of “women are people, too” was as much a crock as the “F” word-laced rant.
To enable you to resolve your navigation errors, this morning I compiled a few URLs so you can realize what’s actually going here:
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing-yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/
https://www.thefire.org/cases/protesters-at-yale-threaten-free-speech-demand-apologies-and-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/
https://www.thefire.org/email-from-jonathan-holloway-dean-of-yale-college/
Mizzou is just icing on the cake. The behavior of these supposed academic “leaders” is an insult to cowards.
Okay, you win. I’m out.
You don’t have to be out. I was thinking about leaving myself.
One of the longer topics at the K2 lunch was the usefulness of staying on this blog. Alex in W has left, and few others seem to care much about 1st Ad law (or any other secular) kind.
I don’t see the point in disagreeing with, say, timothy, just for the heck of it. As soon as I found out that my “2 + 2 = 4” hypo had been an actual argument on this blog, my heart sank. What’s the point????
No, you guys can have your sandbox. I don’t feel like being a punching bag for people who can’t stand to be challenged. Maybe I’ll see if Jillybean is hanging out somewhere else, or Ian.
Now, don’t burn any bridges. When your car gets a flat and you change from Rosie the Riveter to Scarlett O’Hara you might need these guys.
The funny thing is that underneath it all Scarlett O’Hara was tough as nails. And underneath her overalls Rosie was probably gentle and sensitive.
I have fix-a-flat and an air compressor. Pbbtthhh.
I get Barnabas’ point and like your response at the same time. How does that work? I must be in a good mood tonight. ;)
Won’t fix a blow-out or a side-wall flat.
It’s largely an “elect” sandbox and Methodists don’t have that doctrine.
FWIW, one thing you should expect to get out of someone with flight safety experience is the importance of ground track; the event sequence. (1) Complaints about costumes, (2) child devel/prof/dorm mom e-mails her residents, (3) her hubby gets jumped, (4) FIRE member gets it on cel ph, (5) video goes viral, (6) Yale CEO allows himself to whined at for TWO HOURS with this nonsense, (7) goes to an evening meeting and gets whined at more (8) pens a groveling e-mail. Just wow.
If you’re going to stop yelling at me, we can have this conversation. I read the email from the wife. I had already done that, when I read about this in the NY Times. I agreed with every word. When somebody starts screaming at you out of the blue, there’s something going on that you can’t see on the surface. You can never find out what it is if you start screaming back. I react very badly when I feel that I am being attacked. He had to feel that way and yet he stood there and let her get… Read more »
I’ll work on a non-yelling response, but my attitude remains that leaders do indeed have a duty to investigate rational concerns. However, Yale was indulging bullies making bogus costume complaints from the gitgo. Anyone who believes these complaints merited any investigation is unfit for a supervisory position.
Listening to this nonsense for two minutes – -forget TWO HOURS – – does nothing but encourage more of the same nonsense. These campus bullies and aspiring tyrants need to hear “No” and “Dismissed” earlier and more often.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Methodist talk like that before. Well, good! :)
No, this is pretty much my only hangout so don’t desert me, either of you. The diversity of opinion is what makes it fun.
Where else will you find a heated debate over castration versus starched petticoats?
Or loins?
You can’t stop saying it now, can you?
(ears prick up!) I’ve mostly stayed out of this one, because I just don’t have a ton to say about it. I don’t think anyone comes out looking well from the video, or what’s happening at UMiss, or many other places in academia. I find myself often ashamed of my profession and enclosed world of colleges.
Mizzou, to be precise. The Ole Miss people would not want to be associated with this, at least I hope so.
My apologies. I think? :)
Ole Miss actually handled some things a lot better. Banning the waving of the rebel flag at football games, for instance, which started when the school was integrated. That thing was banned years ago and they didn’t wait for riots and demonstrations to do it.
There is a trick to letting people know that you are sincerely listening to their complaint and you have every intention of correcting wrongs, and they can trust you to do it; and at the same time, drawing a line if they start to get abusive about that.
It starts with listening, every time.
I’m sure this actually happens a lot, but of course that will never make the paper so we’ll never know. We only know about failures.
Very true. I totally agree that listening so essential to any good conversation, and double incumbent for Christians.
But emasculation here, if not literal, is necessarily metaphorical, and is a reference to neutralization, which can apply to all.
Women have loins too. We just gird them with girdles rather than loin cloths.
I’d always thought to “gird up your loins” was a necessary preparation for men going into battle? Are you saying it’s not necessarily a masculine metaphor as used in the Bible? I believe this is the most I’ve said “loins” in a conversation. I’m starting to feel embarrassed.
I think you are right, and I was just being silly. But women do actually have loins as well; I was curious and I looked it up. It is not a word I use in daily conversation! If I had to say it to a doctor, I would get the giggles.
So do cows and pigs now that I think of it. And theirs are delicious!
Here is how to gird up one’s loins.
Doug used the image of a man being castrated to describe what happened to the 100 hyppthetical people. I assume he means that they were made impotent, but you’ll have to ask him why he used that imagery.
I didn’t realize he thought women were potent in the first place.
Indeed. Your mistake. And that’s a key point of ignorance or slander in much of your comments in this blog.
So, you understand this scenario to be suggesting that the despot literally removed the testicles of the other 100? If so, then you missed the point by accident. If not, then you missed it on purpose.
If you think that’s what I thought then you missed my point.
Under an earlier blog post, Laura boldly rejected any assigned distinction of husband/wife roles in marriage, even in spite of Eph 5:23-24 and 1Cor 11:3. This informs me that Laura is loyal to her own ideas of feminism and political correctness above her loyalty to Scripture. Because of this, Laura’s credibility has been … castrated.
I reject your self-serving interpretation. And once again, you hit “reply” to my comment and then talk about me in third person. You expressed before that you mean to put me on the defensive when you do that, and then ridiculed me when I said I didn’t want to fight. I just really wonder about the psychology of a person who deliberately provokes and then denies provoking like you do. I’ll have mutually respectful conversation all day long with people I disagree with, because either of us may learn something new or crystallize how and why we believe what we… Read more »
I never denied provoking, or putting Laura on the defensive. Though I think she did most of that work by rejecting something that is very plain in Scripture. I simply pointed out that her position was openly contrary to Eph 5:23-24. She ought to feel defensive, since she set herself in opposition to Scripture, and she ought to (will one day) give an account for herself. Unfortunately, Laura seem to want to play the victim, and paint me as an attacker. She ignores that being on the defense for one’s position doesn’t mean that someone else is being mean. Students… Read more »
You know darn well that the abstract concept of “credibility” doesn’t have testicles, and therefore cannot be castrated. As such, Laura will miss your point entirely – not b/c she can’t conceptually grasp the concept of metaphorical castration/impotence, but because she needs enough rhetorical plausible deniability to ignore the pertinence and appropriateness of the metaphor.
I realize fully you didn’t take it as literal castration, but I was pointing it out to highlight the inconsistency (notice that I provided the possibility that you missed the point on purpose – meaning that I realized you didn’t necessarily take it as literal castration). You wanted to reject the point of metaphorical castration of a group by insisting that castration couldn’t literally be possible. But of course, the impossibility of literally castrating women is no issue since the castration is not literal in the first place, and b/c the group is of unspecified gender breakdown anyway —– the… Read more »
Usually when we talk about men being castrated in the metaphorical sense, we mean a psychological emasculation. Women aren’t psychologically masculine, so I still don’t see how it could apply.
If you want to talk about a group of actual men, no women, like “men’s Bible study,” what word can you use to indicate that you mean “not women” if “men” isn’t it?
But you’re shifting the meaning by an equivocation that doesn’t apply to Doug’s example. And if we’re analyzing the use as it pertains to Doug’s example, then we probably ought to stick to Doug’s example. His scenario was obviously about a citizenry – en mass – being neutralized in their willingness to act. It wasn’t a niche application to say, male-female relations, or inter-marriage issues. He was talking about a society at large, being neutralized, being reduced to servility. It’s been common practices across many languages for centuries for mankind and even “men,” and “man,” in some circumstances, to refer… Read more »
Laura seems to be in the business of taking up offenses, which is a tactic used to put others on the defensive. But she harps on me for daring to put her on the defensive for being out of accord with Scripture on the matter of husband/wife distinctions in marriage. Apparently Laura thinks it’s okay to take all of her proxy offenses, and heap them on Wilson, to demand that he give an account of himself (a defense), but somehow everyone else who dares to challenge her for a defense is being an “attacker”. This kind of feminism is feeble… Read more »
OK, I saw your comment about me to Katecho. Don’t bother responding.
_OK, I saw Laura’s comment about Wilson to us. Don’t bother responding._
It’s the new emotionally hurt, pitiful, wounded brand of feminism that wants to be regarded as brave and strong, like a man. Riding on a horse named Double-standard is not the most effective way to argue against different roles and standards for men and women.
And your rude way of talking to me is supposed to convince me that your notion of how to talk to women is better than mine?
LOL again.
Laura wrote: And your rude way of talking to me is supposed to convince me that your notion of how to talk to women is better than mine? Curious. Is Laura suggesting that there is one way of speaking to men, and another way of speaking to women? How rude. How un-feministic. I thought every gender identity was supposed to be equal and interchangeable, with just one standard for all? Laura said to Wilson: Do you all just wash your hands now? “Katie knew the score,” you said. Speaking of double-standards, Laura’s own example tells us a lot about how… Read more »
“Curious. Is Laura suggesting that there is one way of speaking to men, and another way of speaking to women?” So you look to my leadership in determining your actions. Cool. I don’t understand the rest of your comment. You’re defending rudeness but you’re accusing me of being rude. Is rudeness OK, or not? Or are you again deciding that I am rude, but that you will peg your standards to mine and defer to my leadership? My intention in asking DW that question is not to be rude or to offend. I know you will read it that way… Read more »
I think the women expected trouble and had the good sense to skip the meeting.
Best answer!
Not my mom. She’d have slapped the despot silly and sent him to bed without supper.
Down with synonyms, up with Newspeak! I agree the picture kinda slid in this case, from people to more specifically men. But one might use “men” for “people” because the Bible sometimes does–while taking good care of women; they don’t “vanish.” One might use it out of habit as standard English, or out of carelessness, or out of misogyny, or out of specificity, or to give offense. One might also avoid it for a variety of reasons. (I think Justice Alito uses less of that kind of thing than any other of the Supremes.) Pay attention to context and remember… Read more »
Social justice warriors are not in the business of overlooking offenses. They are seeking an altogether different kind of “glory”.
I remember being compelled to read Cardinal Newman’s essay on gentlemanliness back in the day. He said that a mark of a true gentleman was an unwillingness to take offense.
It is to Mr. Wilson’s credit that he perceives the danger of government indoctrination of children, but it seems he is unable to recognize the ways in which he himself has been propagandized through “conservative” media and the reich wing evangelical hive mind that pervades this country. Perhaps, given Mr. Wilson’s skepticism of the politicians, he will use the upcoming Veteran’s Day holiday to speak out against the welfare-warfare state, two sides of the same coin that unapologetically carry out the exact tactic he describes here. The political neocons that Mr. Wilson is inclined to support believe that it is… Read more »
“which cause more men to join the military, swelling its ranks to further enable neocon aggression,”
Beni, How many men in the militray now, as a percentage of population?
How many men in the militray durring WW II, as a percentage of population?
“to occasionally carry out acts of aggression against small countries”
Which countries is the USA aggressing Beni?
Ben, hope to address this question more thoroughly as the Republican field narrows. I am closer to Rand Paul’s foreign policy, policy wise, but see the value in having a leader who is plausibly scary, like Ted Cruz would be — not so that we might get in wars, but so that we wouldn’t. But more later.
“and the reich wing evangelical hive mind that pervades this country.”
Uh, yeah, sure, that’s what’s pervading the country.
I would say he recognized quite well the propaganda he has received. Remember, Wilson ascribes to “not whether but which” philosophy of things. This means it’s not whether or not we will ascribe to propaganda, but which one we will ascribe to.
I’m not so sure. He seems pretty supportive of Ted Cruz, a staunch neocon. If someone like Cruz gets elected it will cost future generations trillions (through national debt) to fund the belligerent campaigns the U.S. military will almost certainly engage in. Not to mention the lives lost on both sides, and the continued growth of the national security complex at home.
And what propaganda led you to those assumptions?
Not so much propaganda as the actual statements of Cruz and other neocons themselves. They will do this unabashedly. That’s what I find so strange.
What propaganda led you to the idea that only “neocons” pose such a threat?
Where did I assert that neocons were exclusively guilty of this?
Don’t be so optimistic – it’s highly unlikely the American empire will last another generation.
A better example would be WW2. From 1937 on, Japan was committing genocidal caliber war atrocities in China. They raped and murdered thousands upon thousands every day.very little was done by anyone.
CAUTION: The “F” word gets thrown twice in the embedded cel phone video by the young female screamer, while the screamee (a full professor and easily triple her age) hardly makes a sound.
If Pastor Doug is looking for a even better example of a neutered majority, try:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426765/video-what-social-justice-warrior-looks-david-french
I will surmise that the professor is not a outspoken, brave , cow-poke preacher from out West. The Theology of slut walks, its everywhere.
No need to surmise. You can read the story without opening the video. It quotes the e-mail about Halloween costumes (yes, you read that right) igniting the campus of Yale.
Just the text ought to suffice. But to enjoy the full flavor of “social justice warrior(ette?) in action it’s . . . edifying . . . to watch her rant and the prof take it.
Wound up having a long lunch with K2 today. He was in Louisiana for a few days so our paths did cross after all; we found a town halfway. Turns out you two share the same home town. If you take him up on his beer offer, I predict you’ll be pleasantly surprised. (I wasn’t but I’m predicting you will be.)
Hi Kelly,
I live in Appalachia now and God wants me here.
From what I’ve read recently about your new neck of the woods, it’s an even deeper pit than it was when rural hunger made such a splash in the 1960 JFK-Nixon race.
Here’s hoping/praying you are able to make a difference.
P.S. Keep quiet about that “elect” thing. The last thing these people need to hear is that they are divinely pre-ordained to be screwed.
I admire his self control. I really do. I’ll never have that mastery of myself in a million years. He let her scream at him and he just **listened**. Don’t know if I could do that. My temper is too short.
“There is, however, a point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.” Edmund Burke. His cowardice is a mini-Munich.
Off on long day. Back after supper.
I don’t see cowardice in him. What do you want him to have done, slapped her? Screamed louder? What would Jesus do? That woman has one of two problems. Either she has reached her chronologically grown-up age with no one ever having done her the tremendous favor of teaching her how to act – her parents and other relatives, teachers, etc., have severely let her down – or she has had some horrific experience you and I don’t know and is lashing out of her pain. Either way I feel sorry for her. If you like being outraged by grown-up… Read more »
Instead of meekly cowering like a petticoat with no starch at “BE QUIET!,” he should have begun calmly explaining to her that she not only had no case on the merits, but she was so far out of bounds proper conduct that she would have invalidated her point even if she had had one. Had she not back off after a few seconds, he should have turned to crowd and begun to make the same points. Given that you’ve made a false equivalence argument (DKE = university failing to censor Halloween costumes + daring to defend free speech), I’m repeating… Read more »
I don’t want to read someone else’s commentary. You can state what you think, can’t you? You think it was cowardly of him not to continue to piss her off? When people are throwing a tantrum like that they can’t hear you. What good would it have done? Yeah, escalate a big ugly shouting match. That would show her. “Given that you’ve made a false equivalence argument (DKE = university failing to censor Halloween costumes + daring to defend free speech)” For pete’s sake. No, DKE with the torches and the chants >>> one stupid girl screaming in broad daylight… Read more »
You’re that stupid, either. You just have an agenda. The URLs are ground track. The first is the Halloween costume e-mail which ignited this mess. No commentary; pure what she wrote. The one from the Dean apologizes for not being more craven. Ditto no commentary. You want commentary from me? Fine. If you wilt before tyranny you get more of it. And about larger issues that Halloween costumes. The bullies masked as victims here have no legitimate claims on the merits and would be idiots if they did have a point. Obviously you haven’t realized yet this was a firestorm… Read more »
I usually agree with you, Kelly, but I think you’re wrong this time. Consider the overall climate. A male professor who yells back at a woman is going to be unfairly treated by the media, his administration, and probably a huge percentage of his students. If he raises his voice, he is using his gender to badger her. If he makes his points calmly, he is using his academic privilege to patronize her. He is in a no-win, and the best thing he can do is keep quiet, go home, and write a hysterically funny parody.
Leaders MAKE the climate. Leaders don’t worry how the enemy will paint them and make no mistake, today’s admin and mainstream media are unregistered lobbyists for the tyrant/PC mind-set. (Look no further that the last few days of Carson. He pushed back; he made his points.) As if satire or parody would defeat the thug de-starching the 100 petticoats on the stage. Leaders get out on the stump and MAKE public opinion. OTOH, if for example ashv is correct that the ‘Muricun Empire won’t last another generation, the sooner the Remnant makes that discovery, the better off we all will… Read more »
I have to say I don’t feel sorry for her unless she is recovering from a truly horrendous experience in which case she should be getting treatment in a peaceful clinic somewhere. If you have the incredible privilege of attending Yale, you have a duty to behave with decorum no matter how passionately you feel about the subject. It seems to me that universities are simply not possible if it is ever okay for people to scream at each other.
If she never had a mommy who taught her how to act? If no one had ever loved her enough to teach her acceptable behavior?
If she were a teenager in a foster home, I would feel compassion even as I hoped her caregivers were teaching her self control. If she were a feral child raised by wolves in the forest, ditto. If she came to Yale from a Romanian orphanage, even more compassion. But you don’t get admitted to Yale without talent and/or privilege, and I simply can’t believe that she screamed her way through her AP courses, her SATs, her interview with the admissions committee, and the plane ride to New Haven.
They’ve got all kinds of programs for getting people into Yale.
And happy people don’t act that way.
We don’t know her story but there’s definitely something wrong there.
Well, I would have to agree with that! My Canadian upbringing says that you don’t get to scream unless a grizzly bear is gnawing on your foot. Even then, you have to begin by saying , “Sorry to make a fuss.”
Of course there’s something wrong there. Maybe she has all kinds of background issues that make appropriate behavior extremely difficult for her. And maybe the thing wrong with her is that she’s just a brat. Those people *do* exist, they’re quite common, and they’re probably more common in the centers of academic and economic privilege, where you find higher than normal concentrations of people who have spent their lives acting out in order to get their parents to buy off their behavior. You seem to want to rule out that possibility. Compassion requires acknowledging human weakness and the difficulties we… Read more »
“You seem to want to rule out that possibility. ” What I’m wanting to rule out is instant judgment. If a two-year-old starts screaming, it could be to get attention which he knows he’ll get b/c he’s been disciplined for it before. It could be because he’s been trying to work a toy that won’t work for thirty minutes, he’s way overdue his nap, and he has reached the end of his little toddler rope. It could be because he looked around, didn’t see his mommy, and freaked out. It could be because he has an ear infection and it… Read more »
I think it’s rather a stretch to posit that she made it into Yale without having had role models of minimally acceptable public behavior. If this was a woman of no known background, that might be a reasonable point, but running the Yale admissions gantlet does not happen without some exposure to basic social cues, and an ability to comprehend and apply them.
And yet here she is, acting that way at Yale. All of that anger comes from somewhere, don’t you think?
The parsimonious explanation is that she has learned that these sorts of outbursts are the most effective way to get what she wants, and she believes there will be no consequences for her uncivilized behaviour.
Maybe she’s been told repeatedly since childhood that she is the victim of generations of oppression and that she needs to aggressively assert her rights. She probably believes that “riot is the language of the unheard” and so a screaming fit seems like a very measured action. Its nice to see the fallout from racial Marxism fall on the Ivy league intelligentsia where it belongs.
Yes, and I am sorry that I feel a bit hard-hearted here. But sometimes people use anger as a means of bullying other people because it works. And it isn’t just men who do this. Most of us could get behind the pleasure of throwing a truly terrifying fit of rage, but we don’t.
Because we were taught better. Because we don’t have uncontrollable frustrations. Because we don’t walk around in a seething rage. Because we aren’t young folks being demagogued by cynical race-baitors. Because we’ve not been thrown into a stressful, unfamiliar environment, a situation everyone tells us we’re so lucky to have, and at the same time primed us to expect rejection and disrespect so that we see it whether it’s there or not.
I see her as a victim, definitely. Just not necessarily the victim of who and what she thinks.
Yes, but simply think it doesn’t make sense to say she’s never had anyone to teach her how to act minimally appropriately around other people. People who have never learned to act minimally appropriately around other people don’t get into Yale. People who know better but channel their anger from whatever source inappropriately, might. I’m not denying she might have had some awful experiences in her life. I’m saying that I just don’t think you can simultaneously look at someone who has been admitted to Yale, and posit that she’s never had the advantages of any social instruction whatsoever, and… Read more »
There are some folks in Yale for purely economical reasons, too…pure speculation here, but it could be that she’s there because her family is rich and connected. Or, because she’s not a male WASP. That tantrum looked very much like what you’d expect to see from someone who was used to getting whatever she wanted.
Right. I do want to leave space for the fact that Yale and some of the other Ivies have extremely generous scholarship policies — last I checked, Yale was essentially free up to $100,000 family income and pro-rated at something like 10% of family income for a good range after that. But Yale doesn’t let even the richest and best-connected in without some level of competence. And they don’t give away those free rides to people who have no obvious qualifies to recommend them. From what I know of the Ivy culture, at the very least, you have to *either*… Read more »
I keep thinking of the old comic strip about the guy interviewing an applicant for a job. “You said on the phone you went to Yale?” “That’s right. I yust got out last week.”
An unchecked sinful heart, perhaps? There are days when I would really like to sound off at someone, but I don’t…because 1) I have been redeemed by a Savior who gives me strength to resist my basest instincts, 2) I was taught to behave, and 3) I pause to think about the ramifications of lambasting someone in public. And when my sinful heart goes unchecked by one or more of these, I am quickly retaught the lesson of why I should have kept my trap shut. In either case, what usually follows is a long round of self-examination as to… Read more »
So when you see someone communicating distress, before you have a chance to investigate what the problem is, what’s your first response?
Compassion?
Or judgment?
If they are communicating distress through sobbing, I am compassionate and wonder what on earth is wrong and is there any way I can help. If, as happens all too often in my urban LA neighborhood, they look insanely angry and are screaming irrational accusations laced with obscenities, I feel sympathetic and wish, not for the first time, that the bean counters and civil liberties warriors had not closed all the psychiatric hospitals. If they are screaming in fear, I will usually jump in to help unless the problem has anything to do with boas or pythons (in which case… Read more »
So it triggers anger in you, jillybean?
“Stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about” is what my mother used to say to me if I cried after she spanked me.
I would say irritation more than anger. I find it very hard to get angry. But note that this is the feeling, not what I would actually do about it. Having managed not to smack my diva daughter during her most epic moments, I am pretty sure my self-control is equal to dealing with screamers on the street! Screaming affects a lot of people viscerally in ways that other obnoxious noises don’t. Do you remember that epic scene in Airplane! where everyone lines up to slap the screamer? I think it was funny simply because that is many people’s first… Read more »
In agreement with your premise of “a truly horrendous experience”, I think that it should be one that can reasonably be called that in an objective fashion. As someone who has seen people shot, shanked, attacked with machetes, exploded, little baby’s heads run over by their parents, people’s limbs and whole bodies impaled, people caught part and whole in industrial meat grinders, and airline passengers still sitting next to each other in their seats after descending thousands of feet minus the plane they were in, in the garage whose roof they just penetrated, the phrase “a truly horrendous experience” has… Read more »
I agree that this phrase has a meaning which should not be diluted to mean “something I am seriously bothered by.” Thank God for law enforcement officers.
Didn’t the motto of Harvard used to be “Truth?” Wasn’t the Ivy League supposed to be “our betters?” If Wm. F. Buckley didn’t have cause to pen “God and Man at Yale” in 1946, would he today?
If this is the rarefied air of high intellect, get me some hog-sloppers.
In America, we don’t have “betters”. Anybody is as good as anybody else.
Whether we should have them is one kind of question. Whether DO have them is a different one. Sowell is a busy man; three of his efforts are:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/11/25/beware-of-our-betters-n1923363/page/full
http://www.amazon.com/The-Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social/dp/046508995X
http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Ideological-Political-Struggles/dp/0465002056/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=161X6MXRQWD7RT0RCG2H
I’ve read the Vision of the Anointed. It struck me as about right.
I’d like to see anybody try to tell me they’re my better. I don’t care who they are. Blank that noise.
It’s not anyone on this blog they need to convince. Back later.
Granted, the man she’s screaming at is a racist, but that was still a bit over the top.
You can’t seem to decide whether you’re a troll or not.
Is he really a racist, or only in the sense that everybody is if you dig deep enough?
If everyone is, no one is. Besides, in ANY sense of the word “racist” ol’ Stone can make up, I still wanna see some evidence for his charge.
Early day Tues. Back maybe lunch time.
I may regret doing this in the morning, but I’m presently in the grip of a near-morbid fascination . . . suppose I do NOT grant that the man is a racist . . . so how in the world did you manage to arrive at the conclusion that this prof is a racist??? Trigger warning follows; two classic lines from (allegedly) real Officer Effectiveness Reports from the Royal Air Force seem to apply here: 1. “Another officer might follow this man, but only out of curiosity.” 2. “This man is depriving some village of an idiot.” Over to you;… Read more »
Here is a communist red-guard angle you should be aware of:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/08/only-conservatives-can-save-the-american-campus-but-should-we/
A century or more ago, almost two, “liberal” was not a swear word. Operationally, there isn’t any meaningful difference between the Little Red Book and PC/speech codes. The symbols and the rationale varies but the goal is the same.
Check out Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” from 3-4 years back. He does a very nice job on the pedigree/provenance.
I cite the book often; I have it in hard-cover.
thx
This harkens back to a post several (?) years ago… “a rabbit should know what a hawk looks like”
“[T]hough I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasure of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me,… Read more »
While the danger you and Lewis point out is always real when talking about sexual morality, do you think that there is no place to talk about public sexual morality?
I think there should always be a place to talk about sexuality, and I think it is a very important topic that needs to be addressed by Christians. However, Wilson’s comments do not actually invite a conversation or provide a helpful way to interact with the topic. While we should be talking about it, it is dangerous when it becomes such a big issue that we have to separate ourselves completely, instead of seeking to engage with those in the LGBTQ community. This then crosses over into spiritual sin on our part, like Lewis points out, when we seek to… Read more »
I have a few questions:
1) Who does invite a conversation, and provide a helpful way to interact with the topic? It seems to me that Wilson definitely invites conversation, based on the comment sections and the people who attended his lecture on Sexual by Design.
2) How do you believe Christians should engage with the gay community?
These are really good questions! Thank you for asking. I think Christians still have work to do in figuring out how to address homosexuality, however I think there are 3 fundamental levels on which it needs to be addressed: the political, spiritual, and personal. One good example of how to engage politically is the para-church organization, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. They were kicked off all public school campuses in California in September 2014 because they would not allow homosexuals who were pursuing same-sex relationships into leadership. However, after a year of thoughtful and cordial discourse with school officials, they were allowed… Read more »
If Thom R really is familiar with Wilson, as he claims, then he ought to know that Wilson has often distinguished between the refugee from the world, and the apostle of the world. Of course Wilson concludes that our approach should be different in those two cases. What concerns me is that Thom R attempts to publicly rebuke Wilson as if he is unaware that Wilson practices this distinction. Thom R seems to want us all to use kid gloves with the apostles of the world (CSU campuses, homo jihadists), yet somehow he feels justified to label Wilson as a… Read more »
You bring up a good point! I try to model my confrontation after how Jesus rebuked different types of people in the NT. With those who were socially vulnerable and seen as especially sinful, he was patient, gentle, and loving contrasted with society that treated them as unclean and socially stigmatized. He was patient with those who didn’t get it, but sought to ask questions, like the disciples. He patiently taught them over three years doing the same miraculous signs until they got it. He didn’t rebuke them or cast them aside. However, with the pharisees, church leaders, and those… Read more »
Its an interesting take. On college campuses, the hard-left is in power–Gramsci’s long march and all that. It is they who try to tell Jesus what He can or cannot do. Should Doug Wilson flip some tables? Beat some administrators with a lash? It concerns me that you are looking at this through the lens of ‘power’ and not through the eyes of Christ. God was not driven by power-relationships per-se, but by a love for His creation who He knew had no power over sin or death. Through the lens of that love, His contempt for those who pretended… Read more »
Thom R is not as allergic to confrontation as he led us to believe. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed an increase in the defense of open rebukes of pastors on the simple premise that Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day. It seems plausible at first, however, Jesus didn’t reserve His choice words and defiance only for the religious leaders. He also included other cultural and political leaders as well: Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.” And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold,… Read more »
I’d like to disagree with your categories a bit. I would say it wasn’t the “socially vulnerable” as a category that Jesus was gentle with, nor those “in power” as a category with whom he was fierce. If we give credence to Lewis (and when should we not, really?), it is Pride that is the “essential vice, the utmost evil.” It wasn’t their social uncleanness that warranted his pity, but their humility. The news that being churchy doesn’t protect you from pride (but may very well foster it) is important to hear, but it is also important to remember that… Read more »
Joe Rigney’s recent Witness conference talk directly addresses this false classification which supposes that all licentious sin gets treated with kid gloves, while any hint of religious sin gets treated severely. (He addresses this at 33m46s into the audio.)
That whole ball-o-fire headed Sodom’s way was just God having a bad hair day…and Jesus being God really does not have the bad hair day’s the Father does–or something.
Thanks for responding. My own perspective is that we need both the InterVarsity organizations and the Doug Wilsons. InterVarsity, on their own, has a disturbing tendency to slide away from commitment to the truth – whether it be the truth of sexuality and gender, or truths more fundamentally connected to the gospel. The Wilsons of the world have a tendency to leave people out in the cold. Not everyone is called to the same purpose in relating to the world, and I see value in both patterns of interaction.
The concept of “LBTQ community” is itself a form of prideful sin — to identify oneself primarily by sexual perversion.
Sexual sin is one sort of problem, and those seeking to escape it should be welcomed with compassion by the church. The preaching of sexual perversion as acceptable is another sort of problem and should be opposed without pity.
Unfortunately, Thom R seems to be demonstrating anything but a familiarity with Wilson’s views on the subject. Wilson hasn’t ever resorted to an “us” vs “them” tactic of condemnation. Far from it. Wilson has connected the widespread sexual rebellion of our culture to father hunger even inside the evangelical Church. Wilson has identified a lack of masculine role models within our ranks, and called for repentance to begin with us. Perhaps Thom R can inform himself by reading Wilson’s own words from 2006, posted on this very blog: Another critic takes us to task in a similar way, chiding us… Read more »
“Engaging with various sins is a delicate subject that needs to be addressed in a way that invites conversation” said God in the Bible nowhere.
Excellent!
This topic was addressed very well in Joe Rigney’s talk here.http://christchurchlakeland.com/witnessconference/
I am listening now; it is a very good talk. I had a working hypothesis that the talk was in-group vs out-group but the talk has blown up that hypothesis–which is a good thing. That the behavior spans both testaments is a most welcome addition to the picture. I am not sure that the apostles of the world, refugees from it explanation is the totality of it; maybe it is. EDIT: In his correct distinction between malice (reviling) and rebuke, the speaker misses the point that the rebukes are a form of witness–you can think of it as an initial… Read more »
Excellent contribution from Rigney. Solidly refutes the breezy accusations and misrepresentations from folks like Thom R.
I liked the admonition that sharp tools are for those who are skilled and authorized and called to use them. Very humble prayer at the end of the talk as well.
Who knew that the prodigal son had a second brother, the sexual pharisee.
Who knew that the prodigal son had a second brother, the sexual pharisee.
I had missed that and re-listened when you commented to Thom R; thanks for posting the minute/second marks.
Rigney provides a very important insight and introduces a principle that may apply in other areas where God shows us similar stories with this ‘binary’ property.
That was some mighty fine preaching on his part. Rigney, if you are reading this, well done.
I went looking for more Rigney podcasts but didn’t find much.
He sounds like a young preacher–well taught–given his grounding. He will only get better as the Lord leads him in experience. Thanks again for the link.
Lewis begins this quote by saying that he has “had to speak at some length about sex”. Would Thom R have been there to stab Lewis in the back on those occasions, or would Thom R have put Lewis’s sex talks in the context of Lewis’s larger body of work? Before lecturing Wilson on the appropriate balance, wouldn’t Thom R want to demonstrate that he had some sense of awareness of the balance that Wilson has shown on this subject? Suggesting that Wilson is a “self-righteous prig” is a pretty strong accusation. One that requires evidence stronger than Thom R’s… Read more »
I have consistently followed Wilson’s posts for a good while now and I was part of the CREC, so I do have an understanding of his greater dialogue. I have thoroughly read numerous posts he has written on the subject, not just what is written in bold. I am saying within the greater context of his narrative that Wilson has blown this sin out of proportion and does not know how to effectively engage with the community to see spiritual transformation. He prefers to point fingers instead. It’s one thing to condemn a sin, that is easy. But how are… Read more »
Thom R is may never be converted from his false opinion, but publicly rebuking Wilson as a “self-righteous prig”, “reduced to self-edifying quarantine” is not consistent with the balance that Wilson has shown on this subject, let alone consistent with someone who claims to be against confrontational dialog. Wilson is simply not a railer, let alone quarantining himself or his flock. Wilson has certainly warned about the extreme danger of rendering to caesar that which is God’s (our children), but this is not in order to quarantine. The purpose is to allow the concrete of a godly education to set… Read more »
There is no such thing as secular, or secular schools. All schools teach a religion; not whether, which. Government schools are a type of religious temple where “there is no god but the state” is taught, evolution is their doctrine, and illicit sexual activity and abortion are their sacraments. “…how are you going to introduce those involved to Jesus’ transformative power?” How about: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed;… Read more »