Been a while since I posted on this topic, but something has been rolling around in my mind for a few days, and I thought it would be good to put at least the bare outlines of this down. This will be in the form of some simple assertions and observations — detailed argument will have to be developed later.
Man is created in the image of God, and however much he wants to deny or negate that image, in this life he cannot do it. For all his efforts, he can only succeed in dislocating it. This means that moral rebellions in one area result in bizarre moralistic crusades in others. This is because man has a need to be visibly righteous. If he is visibly unrighteous in some area that God’s moral law plainly and clearly defines, then he must compensate by excessive zeal in “righteousness” elsewhere. But it cannot be righteousness elsewhere as God defines it — for that would be obedience, and the disobedient cannot love obedience.
We live in a generation that has thrown off God’s standards of sexual behavior, and because of this, widespread pornography, promiscuity, adultery, blood guilt through abortion and homosexuality have resulted in a vast reservoir of guilt. This guilt is culture wide, and it is so massive that it has begun to drive and shape the sentiments of everyone, whether or not they are personally guilty. This guilt has to be paid off somehow, and this is one of the central contributions to our current deranged moralism about food.
Allow a brief aside here. I think it is really cool that different people cook and eat different foods. I think it is wonderful that some folks grow their own, and it is most excellent that other people get their food out of cans and boxes. When it comes to food choices, I think
catholic and eclectic is good — live and let live, eat and let eat. What I can’t abide is moralism about food. In the absence of any word from God on it, it would be wisdom on our part to keep quiet about what we see on the other fellow’s fork. But we don’t. We legislate for others, and make censorious faces at them. We launch crusades.
In short, a sexually guilty people have accepted as “normal” the most unnatural practices imaginable, and they have then demanded that their food be “all natural.” Wisdom is vindicated by her children. This guilt-driven desire has resulted in an entire industry springing up that caters to the deep desire that a morally inferior people have to feel morally superior. That’s hard to do, and so there’s money to be made there if you pull it off. You have to pick something out at random, and then make people bad for deviating from the new arbitrary norm.
The food thing is a subset of the whole ecochondriac mania. To take one hilarious example, on planet Earth, which is mostly water, we are in a panic over running out of water. Otherwise educated people are in all of a doodah. We think we are depleteing the aquifer (whichever aquifer near you is being depleted) by watering the lawn, we think we are saving the planet by putting a brick in the flush tank of the toilet, and we turn our water off and on while brushing our teeth in order to feel that warm glow of self-congratulation. But I got off of food righteousness and got onto water righteousness. Anything for some folks but Bible righteousness.
Back to food. Even some Christians have been caught up in this bogus moralism generated by these guilty people, and have come to believe that this is a “stewardship” issue. But it is only a stewardship issue if stewards are allowed to depart entirely from the instructions left for them in their master’s written instructions. It is only a stewardship issue if men are allowed to create their own morality apart from Scripture. Where does Scripture tell us to beware of industralized food chains? Just curious.
And the people who are morally indignant about industrialized food chains are the same ones whose definitions of “natural” change radically as we move from the dining room to the bed room. If all the foodie people who were living in onoing sexual disobedience had a heart attack one day (because, as it happens, little known fact, tofu causes heart disease), the whole hipster food industry would collapse, and the “stewardship” Christians would find out that their stewardship movement had been subsidized the whole time by moralistic scam artists. And they would further discover that old fashioned stewardship, the kind the Bible talks about, would start looking sideways at the three dollar apples, now that they weren’t deemed cool any more. Because, as it turns out, the coolness factor had been created and sustained by guilt, and now that the guilty had all gone to their tofu-deaths, those remaining would have a lot of rethinking to do.
Take the moralistic condemnation of others away, and there is nothing wrong with whatever you might want to eat. Suit yourself, and thank God for whatever is on your plate. But you can only thank God for whatever food is there if there is no self-righteousness in your heart. Take that moralistic condemnation of others away, and it also turns out that eating a bunch of this stuff isn’t that much fun any more. The party, it seems, was elsewhere.
Where does Scripture tell us to beware of industralized food chains? How about Isaiah 5:8? Or how about Romans 12:2? Or do you think that how we farm and what products we buy, so long as they’re not outright prohibited by Scripture, are areas of our lives on which the Bible has no light to shine? Should we not seek, as the Westminster Confession says, to order our farms (directly as farmers and by proxy as consumers) “by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed”? What… Read more »
I’m very gratified by your request for engagement, and will endeavor to give satisfaction. First reaction: I don’t think your textual evidence is much use. In the song of the vineyard, Isaiah reference about adding house to house is clearly an indictment of the Israelites’ pride in their prosperity, rather than a comment about zoning ordinances. Likewise, “don’t be conformed” is a very general injunction – I don’t see why it should apply to farming and not to the practice of wearing jeans, nor why the “the world’s” approach to farming in the seventeenth, or second century should be preferred… Read more »
There may be better and worse ways of organizing our food production. It may well be that our current methods are terrible, or wasteful, or shortsighted. But I think we must be very cautious to make the jump from prudential counsel to ethical precept. Where the Scripture does not speak directly, God’s people are free to follow their consciences. And I think that applies to dating, to schooling decisions, to farming, and to politics. I may think some fellow believer’s idea in any or all of these realms is ridiculous, and I have a perfect right to argue with him… Read more »
True to form, Jonathan brought his axe to grind against Wilson. I wonder how long it will be before Jonathan accuses me of attacking him for pointing out his misrepresentation of Wilson. Jonathan wrote: Because the original post seems to be against prudential counsel on farming methods and food quality as well. Jonathan is simply wrong. He provides no evidence that Wilson is against wise farming, or quality food. Wilson is simply against moralistic and self-righteous counsel. The context is too obvious for Jonathan to miss it, but Jonathan has an agenda. Jonathan wrote: That even to suggest to another… Read more »
katecho, thanks first for joining in this discussion. I appreciate your participation! I definitely want to say more later, but for right now I just want to suggest that I don’t think Jonathan’s point is a misrepresentation, or if it is, Jonathan’s certainly not alone, and one certainly wouldn’t have to have an axe to grind with Wilson to read Wilson the same way. If you’re familiar with my comment history (and if not you can look at my profile or just take my word for it), you’ll see that I generally more or less agree with Wilson on most… Read more »
This reading fails in understanding Wilson, whose clear target is not any particular farming technique but self-righteousness. This post is not a dogmatic theology of food, but an attack on a certain attitude toward it.
I think you and Jonathan are using the word “implies” when what you really intend is more like “makes me feel”.
Yet he directly says that people should keep their mouths quiet about other people’s food, that there’s no room to criticize industrial food techniques, mocks people conserving their water, and Take, for example, greed. Can you point out anything that Pastor Wilson has written where he makes it clear that he is against greed, but doesn’t also make it clear that he thinks it’s just fine to be wealthy? Here he makes it clear that he is against self-righteousness in food, but he also makes it clear that the entire movement of critiquing industrial, non-sustainable food production is based in… Read more »
The admonition to keep quiet is controlled by the context he establishes, which is explicitly moralizing about food. He does not say that you aren’t allowed to have opinions. The point he is making, as he said, on this page, in so many words, concerns self-righteousness. If you ignore that context, you can’t understand the point he is making.
So the person who believes that watering their lawn is countrproductive to a sustainable aquifer is automatically self-righteous? Because he clearly indicates that the very thought is wrong, and a large number of people read it that way. If Pastor Wilson can say explicitly, “I think it’s possible that industrial farming as a whole or in large part is misguided, and that Christians can validly critique the industry and advocate for more sustainable ways of farming, even try to convince others to their position”, then that would clear a lot up. If he said, “Some of the Christians speaking here… Read more »
No, such an interpretation of Wilson is invalid because he is very careful to use many qualifiers. Wilson wrote: I think it is wonderful that some folks grow their own, and it is most excellent that other people get their food out of cans and boxes. … What I can’t abide is moralism about food. Notice that Wilson is saying nothing against those who want to grow their own food. He is not trying to legislate against them, or look censoriously at them. He thinks the option and the variety is just grand. The suggestion that Wilson is somehow opposed… Read more »
“I think it is really cool that different people cook and eat different foods. I think it is wonderful that some folks grow their own, and it is most excellent that other people get their food out of cans and boxes. When it comes to food choices, I think catholic and eclectic is good — live and let live, eat and let eat. What I can’t abide is moralism about food.” Does Wilson similarly ever say anything at all like: I think it is really cool that different people vote and campaign differently. I think it is wonderful that some… Read more »
There’s a lot to unpack here. I’ll pick a couple of points. 1) To say something is not morally obligatory is not the same as saying it is stupid and pointless. Many nice things are not morally obligatory. To object to someone legislating incorrectly is not necessarily to attack the thing they want to legislate about – any more than rejecting the fundamentalist convictions about alcohol means embracing Bacchus. There are other options available. 2) Your argument depends far more than it should on Wilson’s silence. That should be a red flag to you. As it is, he has not… Read more »
> To say something is not morally obligatory is not the same as saying it is stupid and pointless. It’s not just that something isn’t morally obligatory. It would be entirely different if Wilson had said (or if you were to recognize) that there are real moral questions here, that these are things with real moral weight, that how to calculate that weight and how to weigh it against other considerations is uncertain enough that it’s not appropriate to oblige anyone else, but that’s not what’s happening here. You’re not recognizing any moral weight to organic considerations at all. And… Read more »
(I’m catching up here, so apologies if I repeat myself.)
I have no objection to your moral scruples about agribusiness. You have the freedom in Christ to feel the obligation of stewardship with greater weight than I, and I am only too happy for you to serve Christ to the best of your ability along the avenues of engagement that suit you.
Is that a satisfactory answer?
That sounds a lot like Wilson’s comments about all choices being good and being happy with everyone coming to whatever various and contradictory conclusions each person wants to make, implying that really there are no real moral questions at play here at all. That raises the question, again, why Wilson would have an approach like that when it comes to agriculture and such a radically different approach when it comes to politics or schooling or dating, etc. Apart from an answer to that question (which I spelled out in more detail when I talked about the “two huge holes” I… Read more »
Very well said.
ourdemascam wrote: … yet in this post I thought Jonathan’s point (particularly that Wilson, as Jontahan says, “implies there’s something wrong in making decisions in that direction for oneself as well”) was fair and accurate. No, it was completely inaccurate and false. Wilson is very, very clear in who he is rebuking, and who he isn’t. Read Wilson very carefully: Take the moralistic condemnation of others away, and there is nothing wrong with whatever you might want to eat. Suit yourself, and thank God for whatever is on your plate. But you can only thank God for whatever food is… Read more »
Also, note the important, if subtle, distinction: you and Jonathan are disputing what Wilson “was trying to say”. K and I are talking about what he actually said.
I don’t think that’s a fair distinction. Wilson actually leveled very broad charges against attempts to apply Christian principles to agriculture generally, and he did so without recognizing any valid agricultural positions that anyone could take and without taking any positions at all himself. Do you take any positions on agricultural issues yourself? Or do you, katecho? Is there anything about conventional agriculture that you think is bad, that you think it’s bad for farmers to do and that you wouldn’t want to support as a consumer? I haven’t heard Wilson ever say any such thing. So I don’t think… Read more »
This is exactly my point. Wilson is not, in the first instance, talking about agribusiness; neither am I. Wilson’s accusations are explicitly targeted against moralizing extrabiblically about food. So don’t moralize about it. For th rest, have at it. I think your charge that he is making a broader attack lacks evidence.
No, that’t not a fair distinction. I am quoting the exact words that Pastor Wilson said. You are assuming that he also believes other things, such as that Pastor Wilson agrees with prudent critique of industrial farming and believes that farming practices which abuse the land could be a stewardship issue, when he never actually says that at all.
I never suggested that he agreed with any such critique. I merely remarked that such a critique is a different matter that he does not take up in this particular column.
Katecho says: He provides no evidence that Wilson is against wise farming, or quality food. Wilson is simply against moralistic and self-righteous counsel. But Pastor Wilson does appear to come out against prudential counsel in the topic of food choices and agricultural techniques. Look quite clearly right here: When it comes to food choices, I think catholic and eclectic is good — live and let live, eat and let eat. What I can’t abide is moralism about food. In the absence of any word from God on it, it would be wisdom on our part to keep quiet about what… Read more »
Jonathan rehashes narratives that were already refuted, but adds a few new items to his steaming pile of graceless innuendo against Wilson; all while completely ignoring everything that demolishes his thesis. It’s shameful to keep pressing on a falsehood, and he should apologize to Wilson for misrepresenting him.
Who are you speaking to?
Already refuted? Where?
“Graceless innuendo”? Hardly.
“demolishes his thesis”? Nonsense. You won’t even provide a single example that would contradict the universal application of Wilson’s claims (insofar as you agree with Wilson’s claims). It’s shameful to keep pressing on a falsehood, and you should apologize to Jonathan for misrepresenting him.
Jonathan says: That even to suggest to another that one method of farming is more prudent than another, or terrible or wasteful or shortsighted, is wrong. That to say a word about any issues in the food anyone else eats or the manner of producing it would be self-righteous. Katecho says: Complete fabrication by Jonathan. The problem is not in saying a word on those subjects. Wilson says plenty of words on those subjects. Wilson is quite clear that the words he opposes on these subjects are the self-righteous ones. He does? I’ve never seen it. Can you give an… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: He does? I’ve never seen it. Can you give an example on where Pastor Wilson speaks of one method of farming being more prudent than another, or saying a word about possible actual issues in the means of producing food? Even if Jonathan’s assertion was true that Wilson has never spoken on the subject of food production, all that Jonathan would have is an argument from silence, which is a fallacy. As it is, Jonathan is simply wrong. While I shouldn’t have to do his homework for him, here are some posts on the subject of food preparation… Read more »
Were you hoping to prove something by those links other than “Pastor Wilson indeed has no problem with industrial food production” and sees no legitimate critique of it outside of “don’t feed beef to beef”?
No, I would not critique the original post on that basis, because Wilson does not come out against prudence. As if he would!
Why wouldn’t he? Is he immune to sin? Is he immune to wanting to provide cover for sin? Who wouldn’t want to eat whatever he felt like without having to worry about any of the secondary costs (human, social, environmental…) of production, especially if biblical cover can be found? Is Paul’s warning in Gal 5:13 not in response to a real pitfall that Christians face?
Because that’s a silly idea. Even very wicked people don’t go around twirling their mustaches and inveighing against virtue as such. “Down with temperance!” It is possible to argue that there is a danger of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, and it may even be that Wilson is guilty on that score. But to claim that Wilson is actually arguing against prudence is like accusing him of tossing out the bathwater because he hates babies.
Even Christians are prone to using liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, and not only using it as an opportunity but arguing that it’s their biblical right.
I think that we as a whole nation have a massive problem with gluttony. If anyone is preaching sermons against going to the all-you-can-eat buffet and stuffing your face until food is oozing out of your pores, I have yet to hear him. I think that this has become such routine behavior that people who do eat ascetically are looked at askance, even if they are silent about their practices. But I think Doug is right that gluttony doesn’t always take the form of eating oneself into a coma at every meal. Excessive pickiness is also gluttony, and there is… Read more »
But he does appear to come out against prudential counsel in the topic of food choices and agricultural techniques. Look quite clearly right here: When it comes to food choices, I think catholic and eclectic is good — live and let live, eat and let eat. What I can’t abide is moralism about food. In the absence of any word from God on it, it would be wisdom on our part to keep quiet about what we see on the other fellow’s fork. But we don’t. We legislate for others, and make censorious faces at them. We launch crusades. He… Read more »
Whether well-meaning Christians would feel differently about stewardship absent pressure from the current social consensus is more than I know. But he clearly is talking, not about having opinions on food, but about moralizing based those opinion. The word is right there in the section you quoted, and more than once. It’s the basis of his whole argument. So the bit about “water righteousness” – it’s there in the heading. He’s not talking about trying not to be wasteful. He’s talking about feeling like you’re especially holy, in contradistinction to those hicks who waste water. And so on and so… Read more »
> It is the case that a Christian with sincere moral convictions about an extrabiblical issue (like, say, drinking or dating) – a topic on which Christians are in fact free to follow their own consciences – is wrong in an objective sense. He is a weaker brother, in the Romans 14 sense of the term. To those guys in Rome, observing the feast days or keeping kosher was really important. But Paul tells them that their view is incorrect – we are not commanded to keep the Sabbath as the Jews were. However, because they keep the Sabbath unto… Read more »
You’re not listening. I’ll say it again: Scripture does not bear explicitly on what color car I drive. The matter is, in a limited sense, extrabiblical – meaning (again!) that the only principles that guide my decision are general in character, and concern my motives, rather than favoring one color or another.
Now, do you disagree with that?
By the way, going on crusade refers to legislating to others. Not discussing or advocating.
I think I am listening. However, I’m listening to something I can’t agree with from more or less the beginning of your argument, because you practically begin with an assertion of a category that I don’t believe exists (“extrabiblical” questions.) Even on the question of what color car you might choose, I think biblical principles come to bear, albeit in very basic ways like, for example, that the good things of creation are good to enjoy, everything else being equal, and if a particular color appeals to you, then it’s good to enjoy the color that most pleases your eye.… Read more »
you just agreed that the principles in play are general (e.g. creation is good), not specific, and that neither color is objectively right or wrong. Is it just the word extrabiblical that you don’t like? Because I don’t see anything else you disagree with in my definition.
Implicit in your use of the term “extrabiblical” seems to be the twofold framework I already referenced. As I said before, you seem to be saying the only two options for something to actually be bad are (1) objectively bad sufficient to accuse somebody else of sin, or (2) only subjectively bad, such that the reasons for it being bad would have no bearing on or application to anyone else at all, regardless of degree of certainty and regardless of any benefit of the doubt we would give anyone else. Is that a fair assessment of your position? If that’s… Read more »
I answered this before: there is a third category of things that are unwise, but not necessarily sinful. It’s bad to be stupid, but may not be wicked.
If something is “unwise but not necessarily sinful” is it necessarily “extrabiblical,” as you would use the term?
Yes, in the sense that we are not simply reading Scripture to get the answer. There is more latitude in such cases to draw on natural revelation.
If you want to be done discussing this, that’s fine, and I’ll say a big thank you and expect nothing more from you, but I’ll ask a question here anyway. You mention directly above a third category of things that are unwise, but not necessarily sinful. Is that the category to which sending bullets up into the air not knowing where they’re going to land belongs? Something like that could be objectively bad, even if not prohibited by Scripture in a way that would limit Christian liberty, right? (The problems with such choices are objective realities, even if people disagree… Read more »
Hadn’t seen this – I’ll give you one more: yes, that guy should be in trouble, because random recklessness violates the principle of charity.
You’re reinventing the story I was using for a parallel. The comparison was to a hunter. We could say he was aiming for squirrels or raccoons or something up in a tree, so not “random” — I never said that — and the point of the story was that to whatever degree what this hunter is doing is recklessness it’s recklessness due to a sincere difference in understanding of the facts of bullet trajectories, so in any case not intentional recklessness and not recklessness that Scripture alone can correct. I think I made that clear. And that’s the main point:… Read more »
The moralizing is definitely the theme, but it is the theme that’s used to trash the whole movement. The claim, which is clearly made with the examples I just quoted, is that the moralizing is the only excuse for any such movement/advice/food existing at all. To make more comparisons, Pastor Wilson has said explicitly that anyone who voted Democrat in 2012 has disqualified themselves from the ministry. Or that it is wrong for anyone to send their child to public school. These are clearly things that are not spoken against in the Bible, and that the people doing so have… Read more »
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts here! I definitely agree (if I understand your position correctly) that questions about how to farm, organic vs. non-organic questions, etc. should definitely be matters of liberty of conscience as in Romans 14. However, when you say “Where the Scripture does not speak directly, God’s people are free to follow their consciences,” I would agree but add that where the Scripture does not speak directly and indisputably it still speaks indirectly and disputably, and so freedom for the Christian to follow his own conscience is, I think, very different from freedom to… Read more »
You say that “freedom for the Christian to follow his own conscience is, I think, very different from freedom to approach farming questions as if there were no God or as if the Scriptures were entirely irrelevant to the questions.” Can you tell me what the difference is? I mean, sure, Christian farmers aren’t allowed to be greedy or covetous or to beat their wives. But within the narrow parameters of the biblical lacuna… what would be an example of something my conscience might allow that the indirect Scriptures you want to bring to bear on the matter would forbid?… Read more »
> what would be an example of something my conscience might allow that the
indirect Scriptures you want to bring to bear on the matter would
forbid?
Public school. “Forbid” might be a little too strong of a word, but certainly some Christians’ consciences, informed by the general principles of the Word, would lead some Christians to want to avoid the public schools and go to extra trouble and expense to school their children in alternative ways.
Sure, and they are altogether free to do just that. They are not free to indict those whose consciences dictate otherwise. That’s self-righteousness.
There are other problems with government schools that render them illegitimate and outside of the civic sphere in the first place. However, even assuming that they were legitimate, the issue is whether Christian parents are engaged in their normal duty to see their children raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord. That is the moral principle that Scripture speaks to. The particular methods can show a lot of variation, and Wilson is not dogmatic about home school, or private school, or co-op, etc. Wilson is also not suggesting that we can’t ever discuss the merits of a particular… Read more »
Katecho, I think I basically agree with everything you just said there, and I appreciate you fleshing those things out. What all that leads me to ask, though, is whether the general principles of Scripture (generosity and compassion and respect for the dignity of the poor, etc., etc.) don’t have applications to agriculture. Do Biblical principles not have applications to Jonathan’s questions of soil erosion and aquifer depletion and air pollution just as they do to questions of home school vs. private school vs. co-op? Do you object to Jonathan’s understanding of “general [biblical] principles against massive accumulation”? If that’s… Read more »
I would answer here that I don’t think the Bible has much normative information about agriculture as such. I’m not opposed to applying its principles to specific situations, I just don’t see where you could legitimately do that here. But general principles certainly apply – farmers may not cheat their laborers or kill their competitors. Those are clear scriptural commands, and they apply to agriculture. No-one here is speaking out against “Christians trying to apply Scripture to agricultural questions.” That’s a strawman. Rather, (speaking for myself) we object to specific misuses of specific Scriptures, and to a very uncharitable and… Read more »
Maybe you’re right to call murdering competitors an “agricultural question,” but I wasn’t thinking of it in those terms. In any case, my concern is not with what you call “clear scriptural commands,” but with the difficult and disputable applications of Scripture. Do believe Scripture can have any legitimate application to soil erosion, for example? If a farmer knows that a particular section of his field is especially susceptible to soil erosion, and if he could afford to not plow up that section of his field and expose it to erosion but he could make more money in his lifetime… Read more »
I don’t have any particular objections to modern agriculture, nor do I understand the relevance of the question. I can’t think offhand of any specific problems with modern steel manufacturing, either. But that isn’t tantamount to declaring that no such problems can possibly exist, nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with you. The fact that I don’t do something doesn’t mean I think there’s something wrong with another fellow doing it. I’m glad that not every other person is obsessed with Renaissance European poetry – that’s how I get my car fixed. But you keep throwing out this… Read more »
I think the relevance of the question of whether you have particular objections to modern conventional agriculture has to do with exposing the truth behind the different interpretations of remarks like Wilson’s. Some people have understood Wilson’s remarks in this post to mean that he universally objects to the very idea of asking about the moral implications of different farming choices (like organic vs. non-organic options, questions of run-off or erosion or pollution or resource depletion, etc.) Others have interpreted Wilson’s comments to apply only to self-righteous manifestations and not to necessarily apply to all Christians that would seek to… Read more »
Thank you again for pressing me on these issues, katecho! Whether or not you and I come to any greater degree of agreement (which I hope we can), I appreciate it.
Even some Christians have been caught up in this bogus moralism generated by these guilty people, and have come to believe that this is a “stewardship” issue. But it is only a stewardship issue if stewards are allowed to depart entirely from the instructions left for them in their master’s written instructions. It is only a stewardship issue if men are allowed to create their own morality apart from Scripture. Where does Scripture tell us to beware of industralized food chains? Just curious. If I understand correctly, would you be saying that there is no need to be concerned about… Read more »
“does the mandate give us the authority to use, misuse, abuse it all
however we which so long as the action isn’t explicitly forbidden in
Scripture?”
And when did Doug stop beating his wife, anyway?
Do you think that actions leading to misuse and abuse are somehow not forbidden in scripture, properly and fully understood? Is the biblical concept of stewardship so weak that without additional invented precepts, mere obedience to it will result in the sort of disaster you envision?
I’m not Jonathan, but I’ll give you my answers to your questions. > Do you think that actions leading to misuse and abuse are somehow not forbidden in scripture, properly and fully understood? Yes, but only if by “properly and fully understood” you’re including questions of Christian liberty, which is to say things that the Bible doesn’t address directly enough to appropriately burden someone else’s conscience. Do you agree? > Is the biblical concept of stewardship so weak that without additional invented precepts, mere obedience to it will result in the sort of disaster you envision? Again and similarly, yes,… Read more »
I don’t think there’s a lot in the law that addresses your concerns. I think there is a whole lot in the Proverbs, and other places by example, that addresses how the mind and heart should be formed that will address these questions. For example, leaving an inheritance for your posterity and not spending it all on yourself, for example, won’t be found in any “thou shalt not,” but is certainly quite clear in scripture, and not a mere matter of preference. And that applies to soil erosion, I think. That’s why I think it is an unduly weak concept… Read more »
That all seems to make a lot of sense to me. So where then do you differ with Wilson’s position in this post? Or do you?
I agree with it. I think that what I am saying is entirely consistent with his position.
If anyone on the “Pastor Wilson is speaking wise, truthful words about farming stewardship” side of the debate would like to break down exactly what Pastor Wilson’s view of stewardship as it applies to farming is, I’d be very happy to hear it. I do not think that additional invented principles are necessary, as I point out some clear things relating to Biblical principles that are being ignored here. I believe that the basic principle, that we are to work towards the healthy, lasting stewardship of our land and take care of the creation God has given us, are quite… Read more »
I don’t think he thinks that there are no valid criticisms to make of industrial food chains as they are. I think he thinks that to oppose industrial food chains root and branch from some kind of moral high ground is folly. And if you haven’t heard people spit “industrial food” without further qualification as though none is needed, count yourself fortunate.
However, Pastor Wilson appears to think that no such principles could
possibly exist that could call into question the wisdom of modern
industrial farming.
What has he said that makes it appear that way to you?
I think Jonathan provided a convincing answer to that question in his post that began “Katecho says” and then “But Pastor Wilson does appear to come out…”
Re: your honest question: sure, I’ll swallow that reductio and wash it down with a nice Chianti. We have the right to do whatever we want to the earth, as long as a) we are Christians, b) the Scriptures do not forbid it, c) our consciences do not accuse us. That is what freedom in Christ means.
I agree with your a-b-c statement, but I also think that it deserves mentioning that the Scriptures forbid us willfully blinding our consciences to applications of Scripture to those things that Scripture doesn’t outright forbid. Our consciences should accuse us on the basis of Scripture — don’t you think? — and it should accuse us on questions that fall within our Christian liberty. In other words, we are free to follow our consciences in the light of Scripture; but we are not free to turn our freedom into an opportunity for the flesh. One thing we can’t do on the… Read more »
I am a tad suspicious of your categories. The domain of conscience (i.e. Christian freedom) is, by definition, extrinsic to Scripture – we have liberty in a given realm because the Bible is does not speak directly. To sin in an area of conscience means that while I am not doing anything objectively wrong, my motives are impure. Application of Scripture is a complex term that can be considered under two headings, objective and subjective. Objective application is pretty clear – when the apostle says that drunks will not inherit the kingdom of God, he is speaking to everyone. Subjective… Read more »
How do you extrapolate this to societies where many people must agree on policy? 50% feel convicted that cutting down a forest is unnecessary. 50% don’t feel convicted. What then?
I guess my basic question is why do you feel the domain of conscience is extrinsic to Scripture? (I see it’s obvious to you, because you say ‘by definition’. This is a new topic to me, so it’s not so obvious. :)
It’s extrinsic because it happens outside the control of clear Scriptural commands. What makes something not an issue of conscience anymore is the discovery of a Bible passage that bears on it directly. So obeying the government is not a matter of conscience because we have a command on that score. Likewise supporting widows in the church, or taking other Christians to court. Christians are required to obey in such mattes, and we have the right and obligation to corrhect our brothers if we see them behaving otherwise. Not so in matters of conscience: how to administer baptism, whether to… Read more »
Thanks. That helps. Sorry I wasn’t clear. When you speak of interacting with the Spirit, as in matters of conscience, it strikes me as a mostly individual experience. The Spirit tells me not to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but you feel no stirring of conscience at the idea. These are very individual responses, I think, based on how conformed one’s mind is to Christ. My question was what happens when we take that same experience from individual to group where some are truly led by Spirit, some are mistaken in their interpretation and some are led by flesh? If… Read more »
If we are dealing with a community that holds Scripture as authoritative, then the answer is for men of discernment to read the text and determine that it either speaks directly to a matter, or does not. If it does, the the scrupulous party should prevail. If it does not, they should be respected as weaker brothers, perhaps accommodated in some way, but not allowed to rule in this area.
In a non-Christian polis, I don’t see how the question would arise. If the polis is Christian, arguendo, then I suppose it should look about like the process above.
Are you then saying it would be wrong for a Christian polis to do away with slavery?
No, I’m not.
Why not? Why wouldn’t your comments apply in that way to slavery? Slave-owning clearly fell in the biblical realm of Christian liberty, didn’t it (prior to its legal prohibition, which your argument above seems to suggest shouldn’t have happened in a Christian polis)?
I said this before. It’s not wrong to make laws about things the bible doesn’t explicitly forbid. It would be wrong to make something like that a litmus test for holiness.
But wouldn’t prohibiting something (slavery in this case) that the Bible doesn’t prohibit make those that would prohibit it the “weaker brothers,” according to what you said, and didn’t you say that the weaker brothers should “not [be] allowed to rule in this area”? And didn’t you say that’s how questions (like slavery, although, of course, that’s my example, not an example you provided) should be dealt with “if the polis is Christian”?
I recognized in my original answer the principle of accommodation. Accommodation sometimes looks like the stronger brothers giving up their freedom in the name of peace and unity. That could easily be the case here.
You said, “perhaps accommodated in some way, but not allowed to rule in this area.” Wouldn’t legally prohibiting something clearly constitute going beyond “accommodating in some way” to being “allowed to rule in this area,” which you said they shouldn’t be allowed to do?
The terms of the hypothetical include a Christian republic, a thing that has never existed and never will exist this side of glory, as well as the ideal political process and outcome within that imaginary city. In such a case a prohibition would not necessarily be an imposition, as if the weaker brothers were coercing – hence, ruling – everyone. Law in such a society would largely be a matter of consensus.
But look, it’s a thought experiment. Whaddya want? Is this line of questioning going to lead somewhere?
I definitely don’t believe any domain of conscience is extrinsic to Scripture. Every thought should be taken captive to make it obedient to the Word of God. The difference between the domain of conscience and the domain of potential legitimate church discipline doesn’t lie in the limits of God’s Word but rather in those things to which Scripture speaks directly and indisputably (as opposed to those things to which Scripture only speaks indirectly.) But there is nothing to which the general principles of the Word are not applicable. Do you not recognize a category of things to which biblical commands… Read more »
I will stipulate that matters of conscience are still governed by Scripture in a general way – we don’t get to be arrogant in any case. There may be issues that are open to debate as to whether they are explicit commands or not, which is where the current argument comes in – some group wants to contend that their subjective interpretation is actually an objective interpretation, and hence binding on everybody. I regard Scripture as highly perspicuous, and so the more complicated the chain of argumentation connecting the actual text to the desired application, the more skeptical I become.… Read more »
But who’s talking about binding the consciences of others (except Wilson perhaps as a straw man)? Where does Wilson even recognize the applicability of any biblical principles (whatever the conclusions he may come to) to his own food choices, completely apart from what anyone else would or wouldn’t press on him? Where does Wilson — or do you even — recognize that greed, for example, has the potential to poison the kind of choices farmers have to make about how to farm? I’m not talking about anyone binding anyone else’s conscience. I’m talking about turning your freedom into an opportunity… Read more »
I am operating on the basis of certain assumptions in this conversation. Feel free to correct them if they are in error. First, I assume that we are not talking about your individual liberty to have a conviction beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches. That goes without saying, correct? In consequence, I assume that when we are talking about principles and matters of conscience, we are talking about the consciences of other people. To apply a principle to someone else’s conscience is to bind it. Now, sometimes that is salutary, as when Paul instructed circumspection in the meat markets, or else… Read more »
Why do you think we’re talking about binding consciences in general? And why do you think I’m talking about binding other people’s consciences? Why can’t we apply principles to our own lives without respecting the right of someone else to direct his own life according to his own understanding of biblical principles and how best to apply them in his life? Neither of us is working with all the information, and neither of us is immune to having our thinking and calculations distorted by sin, but we still have to make decisions. In the gray areas shouldn’t each Christian simply… Read more »
Because you’ve been talking about how other people ought to do things. Like farmers. My answer to “how should farmers do their job?” is that they should love God and do as they please. You seem to have a much more specific answer in mind.
But if you are really only talking about your own sentiments and convictions, then have at it – as long as you don’t presume to legislate, your convictions need no defense. The bare fact that you feel scruples about something is all the justification you need. Isn’t liberty grand?
So if Wilson talks about at what age other people ought to generally get married, which is to say, as you said, “talking about how other people ought to do things,” do you say to Wilson: “if you are really only talking about your own sentiments and convictions, then have at it – as long as you don’t presume to legislate, your convictions need no defense [and it sounds like you’re also saying that any attempt to defend such convictions is ultimately baseless and misguided, even if you think it should be tolerated]… Isn’t liberty grand?”
If he says something to the effect that “this isn’t a divine mandate, just some useful advice”, I say “have at it!” and we can talk about the merits of his case. It is misguided to defend yourself when you are not under attack. I am not attacking you, and even if I were, I have no authority to judge. You don’t answer to me, nor (probably) to Doug. So whereas there’s nothing wrong with explaining how you came to whatever conviction you presently hold, to construe it as a defense is out of joint with the conversation I believed… Read more »
I was only using the word “defense” because you used it first when you said, “your convictions need no defense,” and I understood you to mean by that that they “need no defense” because there can be no real basis for defending them, because they’re “extrabiblical.” > If he says something to the effect that “this isn’t a divine mandate, just some useful advice”, I say “have at it!” and we can talk about the merits of his case. But Wilson clearly is attempting to make a case on the basis of biblical principles, so in some sense at least… Read more »
1. I said “they need no defense” because they don’t need to be defended, not being under attack.
2. It’s not a divine mandate if it isn’t commanded. That’s what “mandate” means. Wilson never says “Scripture commands that you marry early.” So let’s put that red herring out to pasture.
3. I never said you couldn’t base agricultural arguments on Scripture. If you have some arguments to make, please make them.
I didn’t intend that remark as a red herring, although I can appreciate why it might smell like one. I only repeated the term “divine mandate,” because if I understand you correctly, you believe that everything that’s biblical is essentially a divine mandate, and everything else is “extrabiblical.” Is that not the case? So if Wilson is saying his argument is anything other than “extrabiblical” that only leaves one option, as I understand your perspective, and that’s essentially that “Scripture commands that you marry early.” That’s not how I see it, and I’m confident that’s not how Wilson sees it,… Read more »
I believe that all biblical commands are divine mandates that bind the consciences of all believers. There are a lot of things that the Bible hasn’t got a specific command about, and in those areas Christians are called to exercise their liberty of conscience. That doesn’t mean the Bible is irrelevant to those areas, just that it doesn’t mandate one decision or the other in every individual case. Wilson makes a case for marriage without suggesting it is a direct command, meaning that one is free to consider his view and reject it without the implicit threat of being judged… Read more »
> But that doesn’t rule out talking or arguing or advocacy.
So talking and arguing and advocating for or against any number of agricultural practices, even on the basis of biblical principles (like in Gal 5:13-14), is fine and good?
Yeah, sure. Of course, Galatians 5 doesn’t say anything about agriculture, so I’d want a little more textual grounding, but I grant the principle.
I think I need to add to what I just wrote, because I think I failed to answer your first question. > First, I assume that we are not talking about your individual liberty to have a conviction beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches. That goes without saying, correct? I’m not sure what you mean by “beyond what Scripture explicitly teaches.” I’m not sure I believe such a realm exists. I think God’s Word is applicable in all things. When 1 Cor 10:31 says whether we eat or drink or whatever we do, to do all things to the glory of… Read more »
No, that isn’t what I am saying. Note “explicitly”. The Bible does not have any specific instructions on whether I buy a red car or a blue car, or any car at all. The Biblical principles to be brought to bear in such a case are entirely concerned with my motives, because neither decision is objectively sinful. On the other hand, there are objective principles in play with things like fornication – my motives aren’t really the issue in discerning sin in such a case.
Would you similarly say that the Bible doesn’t have any specific instructions on whether you buy (apart from current legal prohibitions) a “red” slave or a “blue” slave, or any slave at all? Would you say there are no objective principles at play with things like slavery, because Scripture doesn’t explicitly forbid it? It seems to me that soil erosion, for example, or other such agricultural issues can rightfully be looked at through the lens of objective biblical principles, very much like slavery, which is to say there are explicit and objective biblical principles that can be applied to the… Read more »
Also, your set-up begs the question: of course we can’t be “willfully blind”. That implies that the subject “knows the right thing to do and does not do it.” Rather, the actual case you are positing involves a fellow who runs his factory farm in faith, as unto the Lord, and sincerely feels free to do so.
When I say willfully blind, I’m thinking mainly about resisting even considering looking at questions. If Steve has been led into adultery numerous times in the past by chatting with pretty girls, and his good friend Andrew suggests that he might want to consider whether that’s wise, and Steve refuses to even think about it on the grounds that it’s his Christian liberty to do whatever he wants so long as he doesn’t commit adultery, then that’s a problem with Steve’s understanding of Christian liberty. If, on the other hand, Steve considers the situation, considers the weaknesses of his flesh,… Read more »
Fair enough. I would agree that Steve is wrong, but he is wrong because he is violating the commandment to flee temptation, not because Andrew’s scruples suddenly apply to him. The sin, in any case, would still be lust or fornication, not “talking with a pretty girl” – if his conscience isn’t bound on that issue, even if we might agree it maybe should be, then it can’t be sin for him.
You say that:
I’m not sure what you mean by “the right” to do it. But it is possible that there are unwise things which we are doing, which we are unaware of and thus our consciences do not accuse us, which another Christian can be helpful in bringing to our attention?
Sure. I have no tension with any of that. As long as we are operating in the domain of prudence and advice, you’ll get no quarrel from me. I might be unconvinced, but there’s nothing out of bounds about the conversation. I am also open to hearing an argument that would establish scruples re: organic farming to be an actual Biblical obligation, rather than a matter of conscience.
I was so very much with you until you got to that last sentence. Are you implying that if we can’t rightfully find organic principles biblically binding, even to the point of church discipline, that there can’t be any biblical basis for them at all?
Not an objective biblical basis. That is, not the sort of basis that you can use to accuse anybody else of sin. Subjectively, sure: as long as you don’t violate some other objective command, the Spirit is free to work in a variety of ways, and I am not going to complain about it. But this sort of basis is in the realm of conversation, not argument. It’s not really falsifiable, so to speak.
So how would you categorize an attempt to argue from Scripture (as Wilson, incidentally, has validated) that slavery is objectively bad (and therefore good to do away with)? You seem to be saying the only two options for something to actually be bad are (1) objectively bad sufficient to accuse somebody else of sin, or (2) only subjectively bad, such that the reasons for it being bad would have no bearing on or application to anyone else at all, regardless of degree of certainty and regardless of any benefit of the doubt we would give anyone else.
I would say that it is possible to make that argument, but it would need to allow for the total absence of explicit condemnations of slavery in Scripture. I haven’t read such an argument that I recall, so I can’t attest to whether it succeeds or not. But it obviously would need to be carefully reasoned.
But yeah, basically things can be sins objectively or subjectively. They can also be really stupid. It is not necessarily a sin to make a poor decision, although it might be. That is why prudence is not the same as piety.
So is it fair to say you believe there is another category for how something could be objectively bad, that besides being objectively bad sufficient to accuse somebody else of sin, alternatively something could be objectively bad on the basis of Scripture (so not “extrabiblical” in that sense) but not “directly commanded” by Scripture either and therefore other brothers are “free to consider” such a “view and reject it without the implicit threat of being judged deficient in holiness”?
If this thematic Biblical argument against slavery you reference holds up, then it would be the case that Scripture ultimately does forbid slavery. If that is true, then a ban on slavery would be morally required, and therefore biblical. It is conceivable that the Bible commands some things in such a complicated fashion, but I am a little dubious. In any case, that would be an argument about a biblical moral obligation – if valid, it would bind the consciences of all believers.
Is it not possible, however, that a biblical argument could “ultimately hold up,” but because of how “complicated” and “dubious” it is, it should be left to Christian liberty and not be binding on the consciences of all believers. I don’t believe that the Bible allows us to bind the consciences of all believers over things that are biblically complicated and dubious, even if those things “ultimately hold up” biblically. In other words, I think we need to recognize a third category, one which is biblical (or at least arguably so) but not binding on the consciences of all believers.… Read more »
No, not in the least. A sound argument is the opposite of dubious. And Romans 14 really gives the game away, for Paul settles the matter under dispute: the brothers with strong consciences are correct on the merits. That’s why they’re “stronger brethren” and not “sinful apostates”.
The King James uses the word “doubtful,” which is just another way of saying dubious. The NIV uses the word “disputable.” Something that is doubtful is uncertain. It may be doubtful that it will rain tomorrow. Or it may be doubtful that I can beat you in arm wrestling. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily false. I don’t think a sound argument is the opposite of dubious. A clear or indisputable argument is the opposite of dubious. The opposite of sound is flawed. A dubious argument doesn’t necessarily have any flaws. Actually, if it were unsound, it wouldn’t be dubious so… Read more »
Paul is not in any doubt about who has the right of it in Romans 14. “I am convinced that nothing is unclean in itself.” There was debate in the Roman church, but his intervention serves to end it by a) declaring that the stronger brothers are correct in doctrine (putting the weaker brothers in their place) and b) admonishing the stronger brothers not to be jerks. The things about which the Roman church was arguing were not matters whose answer could not be known. A sound argument is a compelling argument. That is, if A is B and B… Read more »
If that’s your interpretation, how do you explain the difference between Romans 14:1 and Galatians 5:1?
How do you mean?
Isn’t Paul dealing with people adding things to Scripture in both cases, but in one case he says the answer is Christian liberty and the other he doesn’t?
Do you see any historical basis in the reformed tradition for your doctrine of “extrabiblical-ness”?
I guess I’m mostly drawing on the Apostle Paul. But since you basically agree with my view while taking exception to the word itself, how about you pick another term that suits you and we’ll call it that. “Adiaphora”? “Grey areas”?
Where I disagree is the idea that Bible doesn’t illuminate any choices we would make and that there is no real moral weight to any choices we would make (excluding Romans 14:14b type situations) except where there is a biblical command sufficient to override/dispense with any liberty a Christian would otherwise have.
What a relief. Since I didn’t say either of those things, it seems we are agreed here too!
Can you then give me an example of where you think the Bible can legitimately morally illuminate a choice we might make apart from a biblical command on the matter?
Ultimately, every righteous choice I make is controlled by some command, as righteousness means obedience to God and conformity to his will. But beneath the level of “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor” there are many uncertain situations in life where there is no direct command at the level of action. “Love your neighbor” may or may not imply “buy him a trampoline” in some particular case. So, for instance, when my children wake up at night and I’m exhausted and want to sleep, it would not be wrong for me to ask my wife to go… Read more »
Could the Bible then also legitimately illuminate a consumer choice we might make apart from a biblical command on the matter — and I’m not necessarily asking for another example — specifically a consumer choice that deals with issues beyond “anything goes”?
Sure. I’ve said before, if you have convictions from Scripture about what food you buy or grow, that’s fantastic. Eat and drink to the glory of God and be thankful.
Do you mean by that: sure, if you have some crazy idea that in actuality couldn’t possibly have any basis in Scripture but you have it in your head that you should do this pointless thing for conscience sake, then do it to the glory of God, but being the stronger brother I know I could do the exact opposite to the glory of God and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference?
You needn’t frame it in such a snide fashion. I mean, simply and without irony, that I am happy you are serving God to your best understanding, that I do not feel similarly compelled in this particular area, and I think that both of us do well.
Is that different from saying: The Bible still speaks to these matters. Just not in a way that permits me to call out others over it. If it is different, how? Could it be at all like a hunter that didn’t know that bullets shot up into the air can come back down in a way that can easily kill a person? If such a hunter shot up into the air in the general direction of an area with a lot of people a mile away, would he be guilty of breaking the 6th commandment? Suppose he read an extensive… Read more »
Your paraphrase is not precise, but it’s pretty close. I don’t see the relevance of your example – following a sincere conviction that does not universally apply is not like shooting bullets in the air! But yes, I really can say “both of us do well.” That’s why I said it.
But there are no more direct biblical commands to/not to shoot bullets in the air than there are direct biblical commands to farm or not farm in the ways Wilson and the rest of us are talking about here, right? If one has sincere convictions about things that aren’t universally proscribed directly by Scripture, like say bullet trajectories, how is that different from having sincere convictions about harmful farming practices? When you say “both of us do well,” you seem to suggest that no actual harm is done, that the truth of bullet trajectories doesn’t matter, that actual bullets don’t… Read more »
There is a clear argument that shooting bullets at random can hurt people. You haven’t deigned to make an argument about “harm” yet – nor, for my money, any other arguments for your view. I have invited you to do so more than once, and you’ve said no. So look: I’m done with the meta-conversation about whether theoretical convictions and principles can be binding. Make a specific case for some principle, and I’ll respond to that.
I think it would be foolish to make an agricultural argument with someone that had already preemptively denied the relevance of any agricultural realities whatsoever. Wilson, particularly in this post, clearly seems to fit that description. I wouldn’t say you’ve taken that position quite as clearly, but you certainly don’t seem willing to renounce that position. And, by the way, I’m not saying I could make an argument that you would find convincing, especially not to meet your “obvious” and “major” stipulations (stipulations which, by the way, I don’t think should be absolute disqualifiers — what’s to say the death… Read more »
Harming other people, or putting them at non-trivial risk of same without compelling justification, is clearly uncharitable. That’s not something one needs to sift the Scriptures to discern. If you intend to mount an argument that modern agriculture is analogous to screwing around with firearms, then this extended conversation about Biblical penumbrae has been vain – the Biblical principle is clear, the question is the facts. If such an argument exists and you care to make it, let me know. Otherwise goodnight.
Closely related to what we’re discussing here, and going back to your mention of the perspicuity of Scripture, do you agree with the WCF 1:7 which says, “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them”? I agree with that and along those… Read more »
I agree that some things are more complex than others, yet nonetheless biblical. Whether farming pertains to this category is something we have yet to establish. I’d be happy to hear you make your case for that anytime.
If there’s any category that doesn’t pertain to that category (besides those that fall into the more/most perspicuous category), I’d be happy to hear you make your case for that.
I don’t have an answer to your question ready, but I can say that my case wouldn’t have anything particularly to do with farming.
As to what the WCF says about the differing perspicuity of Scripture, though, do you believe that all biblical things, no matter how not plain and not clear they are, are still proper grounds for denying liberty to a brother?
all biblical commands, yes. I would also say, though, that because holy living is necessarily within the power of ordinary Christians, that most commands are not particularly subtle.
Love your neighbor as yourself is a command. What exactly that means, especially in any particular circumstance, isn’t a command, but the Bible illuminates what it means, right?
Yes, although in a pretty straightforward way – we are given the example of Christ, “greater love hath no man”, et cetera.
So “love your neighbor as yourself” is a very general command. How about the very specific command to “work with your hands”? That’s a biblical command. Should anyone be disciplined for doing other-than-manual labor? I don’t think so, but how would a biblical command like that fit into your framework?
First impression: that’s a general statement indicating the value of honest work, not an absolute moral dictum. It is not the case that Luke, the doctor, was living in sin. And Church tradition broadly agrees – while unlike the pagans we do not consider manual labor to be fit only for slaves, we don’t insist on it as a condition of holiness.
It may or may not be relevant that the command to “work with your hands” is directed at the repentant thief, not necessarily everybody. There may be something about manual labor that’s a necessary transition into making an honest living. After all, the alternatives seem fraught with pitfalls to one who is used to stealing or defrauding. Working with your hands it at least somewhat less susceptible to bilking people than trading or knowledge-based occupations.
Continued thanks for thinking through all this with me. Thinking on this subject further (as I see with your other reply you’ve done in the meantime yourself), maybe the “work with your hands” command isn’t the best example for what I’m trying to ask. Perhaps the better example would be the approach the Larger Catechism takes to the ten commandments, which is to say the opposite of the narrow understanding of the Law that Jesus confronted in the Sermon on the Mount. When, for example, the Larger Catechism says that the 8th commandment forbids “inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods”… Read more »
No to both. The Bible gives us lots of directives, but many of them are non-specific, and, as it were, non-public. Prizing the world’s goods too much is obviously a sin – idolatry. But it concerns the heart, so it seems pretty difficult to bring someone up on charges for it. The Bible still speaks to these matters. Just not in a way that permits me to call out others over it. Second, it is within the power of ordinary Christians in each individual interaction without being in their power overall. That is, as regenerate men, we never encounter a… Read more »
“If this thematic Biblical argument against slavery you reference holds up, then it would be the case that Scripture ultimately does forbid slavery.” Yes, exactly. To say that only what scripture forbids should be forbidden is not to say that only what we have a list of rules about is to be morally regulated in any way. But if someone wants to tell me that scripture forbids something in this indirect way, a case needs to be made for it, not a mere assertion based on vaguely general principles and an assumption that the principles create a specific moral obligation… Read more »
I hope you don’t think I was suggesting that vague ideas of scriptural principles can be a valid basis for placing rules on other people. Quite the contrary, I’m not trying to make a case for forbidding anything. I’m trying to make a case for Christian liberty. If someone believes something is biblical on the basis of general principles of Scripture, and if the Scriptures only speak indirectly to the issue, then I don’t think it should matter how good a case he makes, I think he’s dealing with a question which he ought to give his Christian brothers liberty… Read more »
“I hope you don’t think I was suggesting that vague ideas of scriptural
principles can be a valid basis for placing rules on other people.”
No, sorry for the unclarity, I don’t. What I meant to communicate is that that is what Wilson is pushing back against, rather than what you are defending. If you (or your position) are not the target Wilson is aiming at, you needn’t run in front of it, so to speak.
I would agree that that is the narrative Wilson is suggesting, but I’m pretty convinced that in reality what Wilson is actually doing, perhaps without fully realizing what he’s doing, is using that as a front to attack annoying (to him) ideas of organic/sustainable/ethical agriculture wholesale. Where does Wilson ever recognize any legitimate or potentially legitimate ethical arguments, whether specific examples or in the abstract, to show that he recognizes any (even hypothetical) exceptions to his condemnations of “stewardship Christians” or people with any organic kind of values? How else can I interpret his remark: “Take the moralistic condemnation of… Read more »
I think you (in theory, I believe impossible in practice) draw those lines more rigidly than I see possible. I tend to attempt to work with something akin to “what is the best thing to do right now in accordance with God’s Kingdom, defined by the love of God and the love of neighbor and informed by the Biblical witness”. I don’t condemn anyone who does not follow my understanding of what is best, but I try to convince them, through the Biblical witness and reason, why the approaches I see as important are the best. I try not to… Read more »
Clearly, I would say, a matter of conscience. I may think it’s monumentally stupid, but the text doesn’t touch the matter, so it’s irrelevant to holiness. Some people probably do it from base motives, but people also bake scones from base motives. Scones!
Yet Pastor Wilson sees it as disqualifying oneself from the ministry. Which I think is meaningful to point out that the lines you are trying to draw and the lines he draws are quite different, and his intentions here are not the same as the ones you are trying to attribute to him based on your own lines.
(Note – I didn’t do it, so I’m in the clear, FWIW.)
Well, the ministry is a higher standard than merely not being in sin. Perhaps he agrees with me that it is a really poor decision that leaves the pastoral judgment of a man open to question. That is a different question entirely.
I just noticed something here I didn’t notice before. You said something could be “irrelevant to holiness” and then you called it “a higher standard than merely not being in sin.” Where is that standard derived from if “the text doesn’t touch the matter,” as you also said? Should the church be applying standards that the text doesn’t touch at all to limit church officers? I think it would be fine to say that the application of biblical principles to some questions (e.g. the best application of a broad command like loving one’s brother or whether voting Democrat should disqualify… Read more »
The standard, in that case, would be that elders are to be men of discernment. I take it as read that it is not sinful to be unintelligent or have poor judgment. But people who are like this probably shouldn’t be leading the church. Just like elders should be “apt to teach” meaning that they can handle scripture well. Well, you might say, shouldn’t everyone? Yeah, but being a poor exegete doesn’t disqualify one from being a Christian. So it’s a higher standard that is commanded for leaders, but not necessarily a burden that can be laid on all parishoners.… Read more »
I think I agree with everything you just said, but if you’re talking about the difference between “men of discernment” that “can handle scripture well” and “poor exegetes,” we’re obviously talking about differences in biblical exegesis. And if we’re talking about biblical exegesis, then by definition we’re talking about “matters the text does touch,” right? I believe there are matters the Bible speaks to only by more difficult exegesis and application (i.e. the “higher standard”). I believe there is real holiness we should seek after in these matter. I believe these are matters where the Bible obligates us to obey,… Read more »
Fair enough.
I do understand your concerns. But I think that if it can be shown that large scale commercial farming does a better job of feeding the world’s hungry, we should not be deterred by a romanticized ideal of the family farm. GM tech has, so far, shown itself to be superior to conventional farming in using fewer pesticides and lower levels of fossil fuels. Further developments may make large scale agriculture more productive in the long run because GM can engineer for resisting drought, salinity, crop pests, and so on. RT/NT practices are certainly good both for the soil and… Read more »
Jilly, I appreciate your comment here. I think implicit in your comment is a view of the Bible and right biblical applications that I very much agree with, and that’s what I think is really the important thing. I would, however, disagree with you on the basis of my agricultural understanding (even while respecting your biblical framework). Wilson addressed the agricultural questions more directly in another old post (Book of the Month/December 2012) where I’d like to respond to those questions more directly. I’ll try to remember to point you to that discussion if and when I manage to respond… Read more »
I would appreciate that.
Wilson’s food philosophy (in secular form but no different in substance) is perfectly critiqued in the book review titled: Of Bad Science and Bad SCIENCE: The Angry Farmer Meets the Angry Chef
It’s an excellent article, well worth looking up!