I would like to say a few brief words about Thabiti’s latest, and at the same time promise to respond more extensively to his (most gracious) admonitions in a week or two. The reason for that delay is that I really want to take to heart anything and everything I can, and not just automatically “push back” against it, or accept it, for that matter. I want to inhabit the first half of Proverbs 17:10, and not the second half. In order to do that I want to read and reread what Thabiti exhorted me to think about, meditate on it, pray about it, and get advice from people I trust.
That said, what can I address now?
First, Thabiti sought my forgiveness for misunderstanding my Chicago comments, and it is a forgiveness that I heartily extend. Thabiti, thank you for doing that, and thank you for being the kind of man who is willing to do that.
Second, Thabiti made a point of agreeing with me where he could do so, and went out of his way in correcting another misunderstanding in order to accomplish it. I appreciate charitable candor in discussions like this one, and Thabiti exemplifies this kind of thing better than anyone I know.
Third, Thabiti thanked me for representing him well, which I really have sought to do, and he thanked me for seeking to be honest and consistent in the positions I have taken. I appreciate that acknowledgment. Being reviled is not necessarily as fun as it looks, and I am grateful that someone as insightful as Thabiti at least sees what I am attempting.
And fourth, and most important to me, Thabiti demonstrated to me (again) his willingness to deal with the scriptural texts as they stand. In terms of my intentions, it is this desire to never back away from Scripture that drives me. I am not trying to obey little insane racist voices in my head; I am simply trying to stand fast. I cannot express how much I appreciate Thabiti’s refusal to play “let’s pretend” with the text of Scripture.
My respect for Thabiti was already high, and I trust others have been able to see that. That said, I need to add something more. My respect for him, already up there, has now climbed up on the roof of my house, and is waving at passing motorists.
I appreciate your brotherly exchanges, Doug and Thabiti, but I have a question. Thabiti has stated publicly that prior to this election cycle he has chosen not to vote and that he intends to return to that approach following this election. I’m curious as to the reason for his passion this time around. Forgive me, but it appears hypocritical at first blush.
In any case, no stool throwing please!????
Chuckle ????
Neither furniture nor feces!
Glad you were around to clear that up Rob!????
One shudders to think how Ryan may yet misrepresent common language!????
Seriously, this is a huge issue in the Sikh community in Vancouver where I am from. Apparently, there is a massive gulf between Sikhs who believe in having furniture in the temple (I am not sure of the correct word) and those who don’t. For quite a while, the services were pretty lively. Non-Sikhs would stand around outside hoping to see all the furniture getting tossed out into the street. Then the cops would be called to sort things out.
“Don’t vote, it only encourages them.”
Trump is too dangerous and must be kept out of office. How is that hypocritical?
But Hillary isn’t? A woman who’s been involved in one scandal after another since the 1970s? A horrendous politician who handled classified info in a way that would’ve sent me to Leavenworth when I was a military officer? I’d say it’s hypocritical and asinine to suggest she should be in office.
And opposing an “open refugee policy” alone may be reason enough to support Trump. I’ve seen enough already in Europe and how here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/04/exclusive-5-year-old-victims-father-saw-video-of-twin-falls-refugee-rape/
Absolutely everyone who has anything to do with the presidential tickets opposes an open refugee policy, so I don’t see how that’s a voting point. The USA has a very strict vetting system for refugees and it’s worked remarkably well. I really have trouble seeing how anyone can see Clinton as anything but a continuation of the Carter/Clinton/Obama presidencies – they even recycle much the same staff – which in itself is not incredibly different from, say, the Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush/Bush presidencies. Whatever your stance on previous elections was, if Clinton was the only candidate in consideration, you’d have to say that… Read more »
Hillary is overall in favor of bringing in more refugees.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-u-s-should-take-65000-syrian-refugees/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-let-500-pe/
As for her screening process, I’m sure it would be about as solid and airtight as most everything she does (Benghazi , handling of emails and classified info, etc.)
Saying that Clinton favors “more refugees” and saying that Trump should be supported on the issue of opposing an “open refugee policy” alone are two incredibly different positions.
“Open borders” or “open refugee policy” is code for “restrictions that are less than the restrictions I favor.”
This is true.
Thabiti says no. You don’t have to agree with him, but it’s not hypocrisy.
As an American missionary, to Iraq with my family for ten long years, I can’t but imagine what I would have done, if I had the time and the energy to debate these moral, philosophical, and Biblical arguments distilled down through the net of gnats. For one, it some sense, I suppose, it reveals to me we have a lot of time on our hands, the blessed fruit of our Christian heritage. But for the Christian Iraqis, they don’t have that cultural peace, that Reformed foundation that we have kept and maintained for 500 years. I lived with them, I… Read more »
You forgot to ask for money.
This post does bring up something to think about: i.e. the average Christian wouldn’t even know that many of the issues discussed on this blog are issues at all. I honestly believe that. I’ve been a Christian a long time, read old books, etc, and I still have to grab my dictionary when certain theological terms are thrown around here. I’m not saying these things aren’t important, but only that they aren’t on the radar of the average Joe paying his bills, feeding his family, and trying to get by. I had an intersting exchange with an English Eastern Orthodox… Read more »
This is a real bromance!
I prefer the term friendship.
This is a charming and respectful conversation and I rather enjoy watching it. I am curious to see where they go with this: “Doug sees how these texts have been brought into the service of people wanting to jettison biblical morality at certain points in our culture. They say “what about slavery” as a way of undermining the Bible so they can go on unimpeded in their rebellion. He’s right about that tendency among some. What I wish he saw or perhaps sees and would be more careful about are the legions of African Americans for whom the topic of… Read more »
“the topic of X is a stumbling block”
Called shock. A defense mechanism.
Just seeing blood or a hypodermic will make some faint.
Diplomacy is always warranted ME, but my concern is that your objections are with an accurate rendering of the text, in addition to red pill vulgarity. In Doug’s case – he’s textually accurate but strives to avoid needlessly provoking his audience.
Well, I like the text, but the text is not mandating slavery, it is not endorsing slavery, it is not condoning slavery. However there are people in the world who take scripture and use it as justification for some pretty blatent racism, anyway. There are people who take the text and use it to justify abuse against women.
So, being aware of that, often when people are objecting to scripture, to Christians in general, what they’re really objecting to are false teachings, the way those words have been used to justify abuse against them.
The difficulty, then, is in NOT watering down the actual truth of Scripture just because a block of people (carelessly, instinctively, purposely?) take it the wrong way. The challenge is in being bold, assertive, and forthright with God’s inerrant, infallible, immutable Word in spite of the fact that some folks will be upset by it. It’s all too easy to skip over the crunchy bits of Scripture because we don’t want to lose friends or make someone mad. It’s also a bit too easy to use those crunchy bits as holy shillelaghs. I think Doug and Thabiti are trying to… Read more »
Oh amen, Malachi! That’s it exactly. Be bold and forthright with God’s word. That’s the only way people can ever know the truth of it.
Why do I keep picturing a dog that licks your face while peeing on your leg when I read these interactions.
According to Freud it’s because you want to sleep with your mother…
Says the guy who married his sister
Once again, Ryan, you’re the perfect model of grace, charity and humility. Why don’t you call the guy’s wife a pig while you’re at it?
I have no idea who his wife is I was joking given his joke about me why don’t you relax take a chill pill and get back to your minion Hood
What I did was give a sarcastic answer to a rhetorical question containing a joke about Sigmund Freud.
And I responded in the same sarcastic manner, have I hit too close to home or something?
Not at all, just clarifying that the joke wasn’t about you.
I am assuming that you mean minion in the sense of servile underling. Does it bother you, Ryan, that people show Doug a respect that perhaps they do not show you? I can understand feeling annoyed that your far superior righteousness and theological depth go unappreciated. Does this chafe at you, and lead you to believe that the fools who cannot appreciate your talents must be drunk on minion Kool-Aid?
Heh? Jilly, I don’t think you make much sense. And on this blog the way people write about Thabiti, making fun of his name, etc, is awful.
No one is making fun of his name. They’re just questioning why he wouldn’t use his Christian name instead of one he took in a demonic turn in his life.
I don’t think you had much troubling understanding me. And I was not intending to be unkind to no purpose. I have tried very hard to understand why you continue to post in the manner you almost continually use when you meet with a negative response or (perhaps worse for you) no response at all. If everyone here belonged to Doug’s congregation, his political party, and his denomination, it might make sense for you to dismiss all opposition as the loyal slaverings of minions. But, as you know, we don’t. People who post here encompass a wide range of political,… Read more »
I don’t know if there is a good or cogent reason as to why Ryan replies here except for spite. I have to discipline myself to not my answer a fool according to his folly. Trolls bait, bout it really. I understand this and I’ve done it before myself. I think it’s just a way of self validating.
1) I have no idea when you’re joking. You often have angry, poorly-thought out sarcastic responses that appear to be serious.
2) Ever heard of a run-on sentence?
3) Are you really a pastor or have you been hacked?
I’m not a pastor, you most assuredly aren’t either
Btw,you honestly thought I was serious and he was married to his sister. Are you kidding.
No. But I thought you were making an incest joke. Based on some of your other comments, that’s a perfectly valid assumption.
Hi Mkt, I couldn’t find the post of yours that I wanted to reply to, so I am going off topic (assuming incest is the topic) and writing here. I noted you said somewhere you were a retired military man. As one, do you have concerns about Trump’s temperamental fitness for being Commander in Chief? I don’t like either candidate; nor do I think that either is a particularly principled person. I think that HRC would give us more of the same, with some SCOTUS appointments who are equally indifferent to the unborn. Even without believing everything I read, I… Read more »
Exactly. And I also worry about handing the nuclear codes to a woman who will post them on whitehouse.gov under a top-level menu item called “Terrorists, DON’T CLICK HERE”.
Jilly, none of us can predict the future, but if Trump has never physically harmed (let alone murdered) a bad employee, annoying neighbor, ruthless business competitor or current Leftist hater, I don’t think he’s going to start pushing buttons the first time a crisis happens. Much of what he says is part of a calculated and hypnotic act–for better or worse. Read the blog of Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) for more on that. I think we’re in equally shaky hands with a community organizer/friend of Bill Ayers, let alone Hillary. While most may dismiss it, the 50 or so… Read more »
What’s that? Christians Raging Unjustly?
It’s the rebranded version of Campus Crusade for Christ.
I don’t want to be nitpicky, but wouldn’t the Muslims discover the group is Christian the first time they attended a meeting? I mean, isn’t that like Scientologists calling themselves Concerned Citizens for Change?
According to stories I heard about the campus crusade group my freinds were involved in, that may take a couple meetings if they showed up on the wrong week.
Back in the late 90’s they went by Cru informally. When I heard the official name change I assumed it was to get rid of the “crusade” part. But seeing how churches are marketing themselves nowadays, “we’re not religious”, using words like “gathering” and “place”, eschewing the old time churchy words, I feel that they may have bought into the autochristophobia.
Hey man, are you dissing the “unchurch” service I went to today at the Community Fellowship Center? Just because our Teaching & Praise Facilitator wears flip-flops and tye-dye shirts doesn’t mean we don’t know how to rock, er, worship!
That is funny!
Some Muslims are open to dialogue with Christians, talking about Jesus, want to learn more, think about life changes, etc. They might be less open if they think that your goal is invasion or that you identify positively with such things. For lack of a better analogy, think of how most Christians react to hearing the word “Madrassa” or “Sharia”. Even though most of the time in everyday discourse both of those words are harmless and exceedingly neutral, their negative use in particular instances has tainted them to the point where a substantial portion of the Christian community can’t hear… Read more »
True enough.
Hard for a Muslim to accept the idea of a religion aggressively conquering? Isn’t that central to the ideology of Islam and their entire history? Also, look at Rev 9:15-20-is not the church seen as a conquering army? We don’t need to be ashamed of Biblical imagery-we are called to conquer, and Islam, of all religions, ought to able to accept and understand that. Our Christianity should be strong and confident enough to make them uncomfortable.
There isn’t a single point in Revelation where any human takes place in any conquering by any action other than the blood of the martyrs. Trying to defend Holy War via Revelation is a lost cause.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with the rest of what you’re saying. Calling yourself “Campus Crusade” is not evoking Biblical imagery in any meaningful way. If you believe it is the best way for them to achieve their goal in furthering the Kingdom of God, explain why.
I am not out to defend the name Campus Crusade, or the organization. But it seems clear that the name implies a crusade to conquer the unbelieving campuses of our nation with the gospel. What is wrong with that? Nobody is concerned about them taking up arms to conquer the Muslim world. I find it strange to assume a Muslim would be uncomfortable with the idea of conquest. They clearly intend to conquer the world and the unbelievers therein, and I believe their whole history reflects this. As to Rev 9:15-20- Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a… Read more »
I agree with what you say about the origin of Campus Crusade’s name, and the fact that nothing is inherently wrong with it. I certainly never engaged in any “CCC needs to change their name!” crusades. I disagree with your interpretation of Revelation, but I don’t really want to spend time on that, because it’s neither here nor there. Revelation disagreements rarely get anywhere, but for the purposes of this argument I’d let your interpretation stand because it’s irrelevant. As I read it, the only relevant point from CCC’s perspective was “what will be most effective for us?” And I… Read more »
It was a joke
You say non sequiture, I say cabbage rhinoplasty.
Because dogs are long on empathy, while at the same time, embarassingly honest about marking character flaws? ; – )
(Come on Ryan, take a joke, you walked yourself right in to that one! ; – )
Thanks Ryan! That’s the spirit! ; – )
Don’t tell me about empathetic dogs. Next thing you’ll be saying dogs are loyal. Well, let me tell you… A few years ago, I was sitting at a supervised lunch session for anorexics, looking with disfavor at my plate, when the program director came in holding the therapy dog by its collar. “It has come to my attention that one of you ladies is running away from your problems by feeding your meals to the dog. We know this is hard for you and that is why we make you sit with your sleeves rolled up at glass tables with… Read more »
So did the dog pee on your leg as well?????
Hope you beat any eating disorder!
Hang in there jilly!
Love ya!
You too!
Hey! (my) “mini gut” is the new black! ; – )
Ryan Sather said: Why do I keep picturing a dog that licks your face while peeing on your leg when I read these interactions. Ryan, perhaps you missed what Thabiti said in his reply to your comment. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/thabitianyabwile/2016/08/03/apologies-clarifications-and-slavery/#comment-169602 I’ll repeat it here: But the only way for us to break the log jam is to actually trust we mean what we say. If we can’t do that, then we should stop talking to one another because we don’t have a good faith partner. But if we’re going to talk, we have to believe the best and work hard to understand.… Read more »
I actually do think he has been too gracious, given the lack of genuine graciousness Doug has shown him. (For instance Doug knows full well that Thabiti has not shied away from texts in the New Testament about slavery. They had an entire debate via blog on the subject matter and Thabiti clearly showed why the New Testament does not support slavery and defended his position much more thoroughly and biblically than anything Doug has ever produced on the topic.) I spent the week with him and shared those very thoughts last night in conversation with him. Thabiti continually amazes… Read more »
Sather said, “I actually do think he [Thabiti] has been too gracious, given the lack of genuine graciousness Doug has shown him.” How do you know whether Doug’s graciousness is genuine or not? Have you ever thought about the genuine graciousness Doug has shown you? The fact that he still allows you to post here after all your lies, accusations, libel, mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, and general trollish behavior ought to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the falseness of your claim. Sather, you can be so dense sometimes. Here, maybe Thabiti can get through to you: I’m on the receiving… Read more »
The problem is, the only one who lies, libels and is mean spirited is Doug
The only one? That’s either hyperbole or cognitive bias.
Now you’re joking.
Well, now we know how much respect and regard Ryan really holds for Thabiti!
I was with Thabiti all week I mentioned to him those exact words about how I felt Doug was treating him.
Don’t be silly on who has my respect and who does not I think I’ve made that clear
If Thabiti truly had your respect, than you would trust in his ability to have this conversation and you would stop trying to stir up trouble and cast doubt in his mind as to Wilson’s alleged intentions.
Sorry I’m not a minion. And my questioning to Thabiti was because I expressly do trust him.
I’m not a minion either. They’re squat, yellow, and bald.
Just the same, it seems to me as if genuine respect means letting these two men have their debate and perhaps to edify and inform one another. You appear to not want to let that happen. Why?
It’s not a debate when one guy keeps dragging the other into a conversation
Who is dragging whom? Near as I can tell, this appears to be a consensual debate. So once again, I notice you don’t seem to want this conversation to happen. I’m curious as to why?
Thabiti continually gets drug into this
What’s “this”? One time Doug and Thabiti debated Dougs veiws on race and now they are debating candidate choice.
Two debates on different topics doesn’t sound like Doug is dragging Thabiti into anything.
The idea that Thabiti can’t hold his own against Doug Wilson sounds a little racist to me.
Ok
Well,Thabiti seems to me to be a somewhat intelligent man with a servant’s heart and a understanding of scripture who is capable of making his own decisions. So your attempts to portray him as a victim being drug into into a conversation he does not want to have strikes me as disrespectful and somewhat demeaning.
Never said he was a victim. You should learn to read. I simply said DW had been the one to pull him in by mentioning him in his posts. Not the other way around.
Okay. So when someone mentions me in one of their posts, I consider it a great honor because someone has decided I have some ideas worthy of their engagement.
So when you rather negatively declare, “Thabiti continually gets drug into this,” you are acting as if he is a victim, rather then a worthy opponent in a debate.
Only one referring to him as a victim is you. Of course he’s not a victim. I just think it’s interesting to note Doug doesn’t have ability to do this with someone who he has a genuine relationship/friendship with. It’s rather telling and actually goes to the point Thabiti made in his last response about what Doug’s actions do to those who work,for the sake of the gospel in African American settings.
I’m starting to feel like jack skellington here, What is ‘this’
From what I can tell, Wilson and Thabiti do have a genuine relationship/friendship based on prior debates and discussions and the civility and respect they are showing one another. If nothing else, they seem to be brothers at the foot of the cross. You seem to distrust that and I keep asking you why. Since you’re not going to answer, I’l do it for you. You are emotionally invested in the idea that Wilson is a flaming racist that wants to bring back slavery. You are threatened by the idea that it may not be true. I find this interesting… Read more »
Ummm, nope not invested in that way. And no, they do not have a friendship/relationship. Yes, I’d agree brothers in Christ.
I think it might be the pleasure of playing “Let’s You and Him Fight.”
It matches his name dropping.
Not even Christ’s minion?
Disciple
Maybe you didn’t intend a demeaning metaphor that implied hypocrisy, then. If you didn’t intend the metaphor to convey that, you were anything but “clear” about respecting the object of that metaphor because that’s the logical reading of it, but I’ll grant that you may not have.
Insulting Wilson merely gave him an opportunity to name drop and tell us that he knows Anyabwile. He wants to show us how important he is. Didn’t you know that Wilson himself has been in his office?! Wow. Just wow. I can’t even.
Who is the dog supposed to be, Ryan? Are you a Christian pastor?
@doug, Just curious what your thoughts are on the matter of Trump wanting to bring the voice of religion back into politics by promising to repeal the Johnson amendment which threatens non-profits with loss of tax exemption for political involvement. Many are not aware that there was strong ministerial opposition (Reformed-Presbyterian) to the election of Thomas Jefferson for President, on the grounds that he was an “infidel.” Jefferson won however, with huge baptist support, claiming that religion did not belong in politics. Why do you think the change among baptists in regards to Trump?
Are you implying that the voice of religion isn’t already very, very heavily in politics? The Johnson Amendment basically simply prevents tax-deductible organizations from using their untaxed funds to run political campaigns for specific candidates. But those organizations, the individuals within them, and all other religious persons and institutions are still heavily involved in all stages of politics. It’s mind-boggling to me that someone could read this blog and still suggest that someone is “wanting to bring the voice of religion back into politics” as if that voice isn’t heavily there. My personal preference would be that religious groups spent… Read more »
@Jonathan Franzone, No implication. Seeking a viewpoint. Apart from currently heightened interest in this presidential election, churches have generally been silent politically. Historically, baptists sided with Jefferson that a man’s religion–or lack of it–was no matter as far as government was concerned. Trump seems to have elicited a change in heart.
We could go through every presidential campaign in my lifetime, and list dozens of pastors and religious figures who clearly endorsed each candidate, or clearly opposed a candidate, or who clearly enjoyed “special access”. I can give example after example of candidates showing up at churches or religious schools to campaign going as far back as I remember. Heck, I can remember major religious figures on both sides of the aisle RUNNING for political office. Every church and parachurch group I can think of that I attended for any length of time, I can describe the political positions of. I… Read more »
Thanks Jonathan. Our perspectives seem to differ.
Jonathan wrote:
Secular Humanism is a religion, and its voice is heard shouting in every hall of politics today.
Well, I sort of agree with that. I don’t think it’s actually a religion, but I don’t think there’s any good argument for allowing its ideas to be in political discourse without allowing religious ideas just as much sway.
There’s an American State Religion that also has a profound effect.
But actual named religions have plenty of their influence too. Anyone who believes that the Mormon Church or the Jewish Lobby or the Evangelical Right or the Catholic Church or even the Mainline churches don’t have a voice in politics hasn’t been paying any attention.
Actually you’ve got it backwards. The mainline churches and many black churches are little more than DNC/BLM pep rallies these days. They’re much more politically-oriented than conservative Evangelical or Catholic churches.
Not sure what the “backwards” is – wouldn’t there have had to be some sort of orientation for me to have something “backwords”? What did you think the implied orientation of my statement was? I’ll admit that I’ve probably been inside a mainline American church less than 10 times in my life, I think. So I can’t really say what goes on in there. But while it was a while back, I’ve spent a LOT of time in Black churches, and never once heard a sermon that was remotely directed towards a candidate. I don’t even remember hearing any issue… Read more »
I don’t think I have ever heard a priest endorse (or recommend against) voting for a specific candidate. However, we are generally reminded near election time of the importance of pro-life issues: abortion, death penalty, and euthanasia.
I also don’t recall having seen a priest do it, but I have heard Sisters and professors at Catholic institutions do it. But since most Catholic positions (as you suggest in your example) don’t fall perfectly along the rather artificial Democratic/Republican divide, in general they seem to be somewhat better than a few others at actually challenging both sides of the debate on different issues. Not that I haven’t seen some VERY politically liberal or conservative Catholic religious leaders.
Me too. I find both extremes fairly irritating. There has to be something in the middle between “God made you poor and ignorant. Deal with it” and “God says to stiff the rich every chance you get.”
Honestly, Jonathan, you can stop the faux neutrality and passive-aggressive stuff. You always side with so-called progressives, though often seem to hide it in long, rambling posts. As for sample size, no, mine isn’t a bad one.
I grew up in the Deep South where many black churches were very involved politically in many cities. This has been the case for decades, and not just in the South. Here are just a few examples over the years:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19840218&id=2ZNPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zwYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3791,843959&hl=en
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/black-church-leaders-try-to-inspire-congregants-to-vote-for-obama/2012/09/03/136b2da0-f3f0-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/black-preacher-confronts-al-sharpton-you-re-nothing-pimp
If you truly weren’t aware of such, I suggest you do a little more research before posting.
I agree with you that Jonathan is politically progressive, but he is one of the few I have met among Reformed Christians. It’s like finding a rabid teetotalling Catholic or an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist chain smoker. I must be bored with life, but I always enjoy novelty.
You must not interact with many Reformed Christians, because more and more of them are becoming radical left-wingers. The PCA especially is lousy with SJWs.
And the preachers and professors of the PCA increasingly blend the traditional tenets of evangelicalism and Calvinism with the doctrines of Jeremiah Wright, James Cone, and Al Sharpton.
You may be going overboard, but there’s some truth to this. Some younger PCA pastors I know are among the first to post on social media when any alleged racial incident happens…before all of the facts are known and without even considering the other side. They start decrying injustice and calling for repentance based on nothing more than MSM clickbait articles.
You say I may be going overboard, and then you agree with me? Here’s a recent blog post about the Orlando shooting by a PCA pastor who’s also a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, the PCA’s official seminary. https://pastortimlecroy.wordpress.com/ He begins by denouncing himself as a straight white male who may not even have any moral standing to address the shooting or talk about gay issues. Then he talks about horrible straight people and how mean they have been to homosexuals for centuries, laments the fact that the sodomite bar and “safe space” The Pulse, where homosexuals went to meet… Read more »
What I mean by “overboard” is guys like Higgins are outliers, though there seem to be quite a few younger semi-SJW types. There are also many older pastors who don’t blog or do social media and stay out of the fray.
You and I seem to have very different definitions of outlier.
Here’s what the word used to mean, and how I still understand it:
a person or thing situated away or detached from the main body or system
Mike Higgins is a Dean at the PCA’s official seminary.
I understand that and it’s certainly a concern. But if compare his public views to those of other faculty members at Covenant, RTS, WTS, etc., I’m pretty sure he’s an outlier.
However, I’m not part of that world any more so I can’t say for sure.
I’ve been told it refers to statistical extremes. If the average IQ is 100, IQs of 30 and 180 are outliers. I haven’t heard it used to describe a person, as opposed to a particular attribute of a person, but I would take it to mean very far removed from the norm. Nice to see you again!
40’s definition is correct.
From dictionary.com “2. someone who stands apart from others of his or her group, as by differing behavior, beliefs, or religious practices.”
For Higgins to be an outlier he’d have to be a vocal minority in the PCA, which is hard to establish with a silent majority.
Thank you! Now I will use it properly! As in: Is Trump (or Clinton) an outlier or is he (or she) an out-and-out liar?
It all depends how you define terms. Are many other ministers expressing similar opinions? I don’t think so…and sure hope not. I’ll continue to say he’s an outlier until a larger group of PCA pastors publicly say the same things.
That said, I’ve been saying for some time that the “PC” part of PCA is fitting. It’s unfortunately that few men publicly oppose guys like Higgins. And I’m sure you’re looked down upon if you dare question why they’re repenting for slavery for like the 15th time.
You might be right, but you’re assumeing that the PCA pastors not saying anything agree with you. Higgins could just as easily say you are the outlier.
mkt, I didn’t even mention Black churches in my post, so complaining that I should have done more research is kind of silly. They simply didn’t come to mind, perhaps partially because my own experience in Black churches was very apolitical. Of course I’m aware that there are going to be Black churches who are politically active – but saying that they are “little more than DNC/BLM pep rallies” is ridiculous. Pointing out that Black churches were active in trying to get two Black presidential candidates elected crosses over into “well, duh” status. Other than providing further proof to my… Read more »
I think that clergy have to remind people of general principles which are always going to be unwelcome news to some of us. Any party’s platform will have planks that result in injustice, and I think it is the priest’s unhappy duty to point these out.
I certainly agree with you. I do the same myself. I’m simply stating that the relative amount of time and energy spent on discussing particular candidates (by private individuals and clergy both) is too much in my view. I’d rather a lot more time spent discussion the issues, a lot less on the candidates.
He is indeed a very good man. May his tribe increase!
Hey Pastor Doug,
Thank you for your open discussion and graciousness with Pastor Thabiti. Before I get a have one question: How can modern day evangelicals be so enraged (rightly so) regarding abortion, yet be willing to go to sometimes unreasonable lengths in order to put slavery in a context in which a lot of apathetic or ungodly people are given a monumentally big pass? If I need to nuance the matter even more I can. Take care.
The easy place to start is that abortion is murder and slavery isn’t.
They’re both forms of human sacrifice and both punishable by death in the Tanakh (Kidnapping – Exodus 21:16 and abortion as out right murder – Exodus 21:12-14 or human sacrifice – Leviticus 20:2-5), however, I do realize there plenty to nuance. I just wanted to get Pastor Doug’s take, as a theonomist, and also as a but of a subject matter expert. For the record, I’ve heard Pastor Doug say that those who took place in the trafficking of slaves deserved to be put to death. I agree, perhaps this would have avoided much judgment from God on this nation.… Read more »
Slave importation into America had pretty much ended by the beginning of the 19th century and was outlawed not long after. So this is one aspect of the situation that Americans did repent of.
Alright, lets reason a bit. I don’t want to make sweeping judgments, not do I want to make sweeping pardons. So I’ll just throw a scenario out and let you respond. If a large mass of people participating in the sex trade, stopped importing and exporting women and children but continued exchanging them within borders, and they still ended up in strip clubs, hotel rooms, and citizens’ bedrooms, would you call this repentance of the sex slave trade? I just want us to be fair, unbias, and God-centered on these matters. Take care. Thank you for the dialogue.
Again, not a reasonable comparison since rape is a sin and slaveowning isn’t. As I’ve said elsewhere, there may have been some slaves imported from Africa who had been kidnapped and could have been restored to their homes, but this would not have been the majority.
Well I’m gonna need some references on this one. However, from you, biblically slavery vs. Unjust slavery, how would you define each?
Since a slave is somewhere between a member of the household and an employee, I’d say the duties of a slaveowner are somewhere between that of a father and an employer.
“Since a slave is somewhere between a member of the household and an employee”
In contrast to the popular notion that a slave is at best an employee but useualy more like a tool.
Well. The liberal/laissez-faire view of employees is that they are equivalent to tools, from an employer perspective.
True. My point was that a slaves have been veiwed as anything from a family member to an inanimate object. And that popular history equates slavery with being treated like an inanimate object.
Let’s just compromise and call them “human resources”.
Dang…that hits way too close to home, ashv.
But what is the biblical justification for enslaving a person?
There’s various obvious scenarios — entering slavery to pay off debts or perhaps punishment for crime, as well as those who voluntarily enter into it.
What’s the biblical justification for assuming everyone is capable of freedom?
Alright, so was slavery in the U.S. biblically justified (debt or personal restitution due to criminal trespass)?
I agree regarding biblical slavery.
Probably not. But emancipation wasn’t either.
But earlier in the conversation you said that it wasn’t sinful? How was emancipation unbiblical?
Doug’s obsequious groveling to “Thabiti Anyabwile” (Ron Burns) is both hilarious and sickening.
My respect for Thabiti was already high, and I trust others have been able to see that. That said, I need to add something more. My respect for him, already up there, has now climbed up on the roof of my house, and is waving at passing motorists.
This absurd and disgusting display is nothing but blatantly obvious and way over the top racial pandering, based in fear.
Doug relates to “Thabiti Anyabwile” the same way people in Peaksville related to Anthony Fremont:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkJcFGvNgcY
You’d make a better resident clown if you were actually funny.
Plus, I talk like a fag, and my sh*t’s all retarded.
“This is nothing but out and out racial pandering, based in fear.”
Do you have any evidence other than claiming to be psychic that Doug is motivated by fear?
Well, the bar for how Wilson’s interlocutors treat him is pretty low, as demonstrated by Ryan Sather. So it’s not surprising that, as a conservative, Wilson appreciates charity from someone slightly to his left.