In my recent reply to Matthew Vines, one of my responses that got kind of a reaction in a number of places was my answer to his sixteenth question.
16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?
Yes, far more serious.
This was taken by some as a weird defense of slavery as a positive good, like food, air or sunshine. Some who take me that way are just confused, while others are malevolent. Those who are confused deserve an answer while those who are malevolent need to have their mouths stopped. Fortunately, both goals can be achieved at just one go, and so let me unpack my answer to that question a bit further.
1. We know that sodomy is worse than slavery by how God responds to it. In the book of Jude, we are told how the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding cities, gave themselves over to the celebration of fornication and “going after strange flesh.” In doing this, they were imitating the angels who abandoned their proper habitation, and went after human women in order to marry them. In both these instances, God visited them with divine wrath and judgment, one in the form of the Genesis Flood and the other a visitation of fire. Jude goes on to say that it was done this way to serve as an example to us. When God judges rebel humanity in such a way as to have our ears tingle and burn, we should pay closer heed than we are currently doing.
Here is the text:
“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities” (Jude 6–8).
2. Sodomy is a particularly virulent form of slavery to sin, and slavery to sin is the foundation stone for every other form of objectionable slavery. Political and civic liberty, whenever it has occurred in history, has been the result of widespread gospel influence. Apart from that gospel influence, slavery is the natural and normal condition of mankind. As Hilaire Belloc observed in The Servile State, slavery was “the very air that pagan antiquity breathed” (p. 68). That kind of slavery disappeared under the influence of Christianity, although there was a terrible backsliding in this regard in the aftermath of the discovery of the New World — when there were fortunes to be made. But then there was a belated recovery and slavery was rejected again. As far as that goes, it delights me to say good riddance.
But a people who celebrate vice, and who hold parades in its honor, and who even have designed a flag to celebrate it, are paving the way for a massive return of all the political and civic forms of slavery they pretend to despise. They are trying to get us to the second great backsliding. A people freed from their sins cannot be kept slaves for long, and a people enslaved to their lusts cannot, for love or money, be kept free for long. As Chesterton once observed, free love was the first and most obvious bribe to be offered to the slave. If you are content to build Pharaoh’s pyramids, then he will be content to let you get it on with another guy.
3. Any society that takes its own revulsion against certain atrocities as the automatic base line standard, instead of submissively applying Scripture to moral questions, has taken the first and fundamental step in supplanting the Word of God with the words of men, and that cannot end well. I have been thinking this particular way about the exegetical relationship of the Bible’s teaching on slavery and sodomy for over thirty years. I called this a long, long time ago, and have been in trouble for it for much of that time.
When conservative Christians adopt a “that-was-then-this-is-now” hermeneutic with regard to slavery, they then have no answer when that same hermeneutic finds its way into the mouths of the advocates of same sex mirage today. So instead of being aghast at my answer, ask yourself why Matthew Vines even brought up slavery in the first place. He brought it up because he knows that there is a profound weakness in our line here, one that he can exploit.
So let me spell it out. The institution of slavery in human society is a memorial to the sinfulness of man. I am not saying that the institution of slavery is a good or nice thing. I am not applauding it, and I believe that the gospel of Christ was designed to be the liberty of every man, and therefore the destruction of slavery. Nevertheless, slavery is a kind of messed up institution that Christians can find themselves connected to in the meantime, whether as slaves or masters. And when Christians find themselves owning slaves, for example, the Bible’s instruction is explicit. Paul says that masters should treat their slaves with appropriate kindness, knowing that they have a Master in Heaven themselves (Eph. 6:9). In the first century, a man could be excommunicated for being a harsh master, but not for simply being a master. Paul says that if an owner is a believer, this means he should be accorded extra respect (1 Tim. 6:2). Paul says teach and preach these principles, and so my response is yes, sir. I do not accept it as my duty to revile men that an apostle told me to respect.
And don’t try the hand-waving dodge that ancient slavery was somehow magically “better.” I know better, and no, it wasn’t. The Christian faith did make it better, on the way to eradicating it, but that required obedience.
Now, because sodomy is worse than slavery, and because it is a different kind of sin than the institution of slavery was, a different response is necessary. Here any individual participation in homosexual activity is necessarily and individually sinful. So now that same sex mirage is the “law” of the land, this means that if a couple of guys are “married,” and one of them is converted to Christ, the only appropriate thing he can do is immediately file for “divorce.” But we should not be spooked by the word divorce because it is not really a divorce. You can’t have a real divorce unless it was a real marriage, and it wasn’t.
To go any other route is to acknowledge at some level that the teaching of the Bible on a matter of justice in society is unreliable. And I am gladly in this tight spot of mine because that is something I simply refuse to do. And it is not really a tight spot. I prefer to think of it as cozy.
4. And last, a society is in grave moral danger whenever their reflex and very defensive response is that all the really wicked sins were “back then,” and the “correct moral sensibilities” are all right now. It turns out we are the good people, which is all very convenient.
But we are the generation that has murdered about 13 million black Americans. This is more than the number of ALL the slaves shipped in the Middle Passage over the course of three centuries, and we hit that number in just one generation. On top of that, out of those millions of slaves so horribly mistreated in the slave trade, just under 400,000, a small fraction of the total 12.5 million slaves, came to the United States. So that generation had blood on their hands, sure enough, but we are standing in it, up to our knees.
For the sake of comparing it to the slavers, I limited the comparison to black infants killed. There are many millions more that could be brought into the discussion if you want to continue to explain what a virtuous society we are.
“I spoke to you in your prosperity, but you said, ‘I will not listen.’ This has been your way from your youth, that you have not obeyed my voice.” (Jeremiah 22:21, ESV)
And then, as our very bloody sexual revolution progressed, we then crowned our swollen conceits by pronouncing evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20), with the highest Court in the land now formally denying the image of God in the human race, male and female (Gen. 1:27). We are now in full revolt against Heaven, and there are many things the faithful remnant of believers can do in the midst of this lunatic revolt. One of them would be to stop repeating our generation’s self-flattering and quite self-serving denunciations of previous generations. We are sliding down into a vast and massive moral sinkhole, and — true to form — we want to call it progressivism. Well, it is moving, I’ll give you that.
As I have noted before, just as Sodom will rise up to judge Capernaum, so also the men of old Charleston will turn away from our self-satisfied preening with revulsion.
The last paragraph is frightening…
“He brought it up because he knows that there is a profound weakness in our line here, one that he can exploit.” There certainly is a weakness there, and it is that when it comes to slavery you hem and haw and equivocate out of sentimentality towards the South. You’re the one that needs to fix your perspectives, but there’s just too much pride there. Doug Wilson is never wrong, especially not when up against people he hates. Your point 4 fails to do anything. The topic here is gay marriage, not abortion. Whatever the evils of gay marriage, it… Read more »
Matt,
Herein is your problem. Pastor Wilson is speaking of God The Lord. “We speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony.”
Until you have placed yourself in submission to God, and all of His Word, you have no position of leverage upon which to stand, or any standard upon which to label anything as wrong. Your words have no sense.
Perhaps RFB, Matt is trying to follow the actual FULL Bible, and not cherry-pick that parts that feed his own biases.
“Please stay on topic and drop the red herrings”
Matt lives in a world where he is the greatest authority, setting commandments for others that he himself won’t follow. Thankfully the rest of us are not under his authority, so go about your business and ignore the blathering fool..
Nice fantasy. Thankfully many of us agree with Matt.
more to the point, the article betrays a startling level of discrimination, justified by resorting to scripture. Happily, scripture also has no authority in the United States or in many progressive nations. If, however, one wants to live in a nation governed by religious law, well, there are choices…
“more to the point, the article betrays a startling level of discrimination, justified by resorting to scripture. Happily, scripture also has no authority in the United States or in many progressive nations”
Careful, a comment like that could lead to, you know, discrimination.
Haha… discrimination by suggesting that scripture (in essence, an idea of the existence of God) has no authority? maybe you can explain that one to me.
Oh, you’re only “suggesting” that scripture has no authority. My mistake, I thought you said this:
“Happily, scripture also has no authority in the United States or in many progressive nations”
Which, of course, seems like more than a “suggestion”.
right. Well, let’s put it out there then. I am saying scripture, on its own, has absolutely no direct authority in the united states. That it is not and legally cannot be used to enforce any of its points.
care to differ?
“I am saying scripture, on its own, has absolutely no direct authority in the united states. That it is not and legally cannot be used to enforce any of its points.” Stated like that I agree and agree. In a loosely similar situation, that same thing could have been said about 1st century Rome in regards to the authority of scripture, yet Jesus could say before Pilate, “So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would… Read more »
Yes… and there’s…
“Officer, the speeding violation has no authority over me as I’m not a believer in speed limits”…
Really, religion should have a place in church, among the faithful. That’s fine. Not in the public sphere and particularly not if it’s used to infringe on others’ rights.
“Yes… and there’s… “Officer, the speeding violation has no authority over me as I’m not a believer in speed limits”…” Not sure what you were trying to do there? “Really, religion should have a place in church, among the faithful. That’s fine. Not in the public sphere and particularly not if it’s used to infringe on others’ rights.” And that brings us full circle to why I poked at you in the first place. You also want to discriminate, like Pastor Wilson; the difference is of course, he is discriminating based on the authority he is under(the Sciptures) and you… Read more »
Not quite the same as I see it. What’s the subject of my discrimination? I’d suggest in this case it’s the efforts to deny equal rights to LGBT persons, using scripture. What would you say?
“Not quite the same as I see it. What’s the subject of my discrimination? I’d suggest in this case it’s the efforts to deny equal rights to LGBT persons, using scripture. What would you say?”
Correct. The object of the discrimination is different, but it is discrimination none the less. It seemed to me you were implying earlier in the comments that discrimination is bad?
I have to go to work. I’ll catch up later.
The reason i poked at your statement was to say (in the spirit of this blog), it’s not if we discriminate, it’s what or who we discriminate against. In this case you seem to be discriminating against the authority of Scripture.
the authority of Scripture isn’t a person. It’s a set of ideas and as such, really isn’t subject to discrimination. It should however be subject to critique and challenge.
“the authority of Scripture isn’t a person.”
So Scripture does have authority?
” It’s a set of ideas and as such, really isn’t subject to discrimination.”
I don’t agree with the with either part of that statement. Here is ‘discriminate’ googled for you:
https://www.google.com/search?q=g&rlz=1C1AFAB_enUS528US554&oq=g&aqs=chrome..69i60l2j69i57j69i60j0l2.2318j1j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=discriminate
Indeed, glad you posted that- “people or things”…
And sure, my mistake, I should have typed “The alleged authority of scripture isn’t a person”.
I might suggest you read “The History of God” by Karen Armstrong. Scripture contains many contradictions and errors- and some of the most substantive elements are demonstrably false. It’s a set of stories.
Thanks for the suggestion, but the chances of me reading that book are small.
” Scripture contains many contradictions and errors- and some of the most substantive elements are demonstrably false. It’s a set of stories.”
You wouldn’t be the first to make that statement. It seems to me it would be better stated thus:
” Scripture contains many seeming contradictions and errors- and some of the most substantive elements are seemingly false. It is possible (according to our limited knowledge and fallible reasoning) that it could be a set of stories.”
Draw a circle around the people who are rebelling against God with support for abortion.
Then draw a circle around the people who are rebelling against God with support for gay “marriage.”
Now, look at your Venn diagram. The circles are stacked like coasters.
re Jon: The survey data does not support your conclusion. In the last 30 years suport for abortion has been steady or falling (depending on the survey) support for Gay marriage has of course exploded over the same period. This phenomena has been noted in the secular media http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/06/30/there_s_no_one_simple_reason_that_support_for_gay_marriage_is_growing_while.html
That Marcotte opinion piece doesn’t really contradict the point that I’m making.
The phrase “rebelling against God” is quite misleading/deceitful and bogusly attributing motives which aren’t there.
Most of the people who believe in equal rights are not “rebelling against God” at all.
They are either religious people (many Christians are not at all anti-gay in any way) who have come to different conclusions than you about what God wants, or they are people who don’t believe in God in the first place. Neither group is “rebelling against God”, no more than you are “rebelling against God” by drinking water, just because someone else happens to assert that God against drinking water.
Many “religious people” are wrong, then. God has spoken clearly in his Word. If you don’t like what he says, then sure, that’s rebellion.
The united, presbyterian, episcopalian churches, the Jewish faith and more all explicitly support gay marriage.
Hmm, aren’t there many versions of God’s Word? Aren’t there many interpretations thereof as well, as either literal or figurative? Why is your view the only “correct” one? Maybe in fact you guessed wrong, and it’s you who’s rebelling?
“[M]any versions of God’s Word”?
If by “versions” you mean translations, then yes, there are many. However, those translations are translations of the original Greek and Hebrew, *not* translations of each other. Translations may be done in styles reminiscent of other translations, such as the ASV, NASB, and NKJV are stylistically inspired by the KJV, but styling DOES not mean affecting what is actually said in the source texts, namely Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Also, mainline denominations, such as you named, are different from evangelical denoms. As such, you can’t just say the “presbyterian” church; there are MANY Presbyterian churches, such as the PCA, EPC, and OPC (I reckon the CREC goes in there, too, though I think there are some Baptist CREC churches. The same goes for Judaism. You’ve got Orthodox, Reform, Hasidic, Conservative, Messianic (though they’re not claimed since they hold Jesus to be the Christ), and others. But, whatever an unfaithful, unbelieving Jew (exception the Messianic) who deny their Messiah, namely Jesus, doesn’t factor in AT ALL anyhow. What the UCC,… Read more »
Maybe you can point us to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. As I understand it, there are major elements of Christianity that aren’t mentioned anywhere in said scrolls- which by the way are copies.
Don’t you think a Divine Being, were he/she/it interested in leading us to the Light, could have seen fit to ensure we have one set of directions and aren’t at war with other faiths (and other interpretations of the same faith)? Hardly all-powerful.
1) Nope. At least not like you’re suggesting.
2) Not really.
3) Because it’s made of words that match up with words in the Bible.
4) If so, I’d welcome some proof on your part.
1) Nope, not how you mean.
2) Not really.
3) Just trying to line up with the clear words in the Bible.
4) If it’s me, I’d appreciate it if you could point out where in the Bible you find support for gay “marriage.”
sure- the story of Ruth and Naomi, whose vows of love are often used at hetero weddings, and the story of David and Jonathan would both seem to be sanctioned cases of love between same-sex individuals. Even something akin to wedding vows are documented in the Bible. I’m really not sure why people care so much about who someone else finds love with. Or what someone else does in the privacy of their own home, between loving and consenting adults. You realize the scientifically illiterate Biblical authors weren’t much acquainted with cause and effect, or the scientific method, right? Likely… Read more »
Ruth and Naomi? How do you call a relationship where one of the parties was using her best efforts to get the other party married to another person a “marriage?” That’s leaving aside the very prejudiced eisegesis required to see a marriage in that friendship in the first place.
Gotta admit, Moi does have a point that has always aggravated me…why do we have to use so many verses out of extra obvious context. We set our own traps. As in…find a verse for weddings that really are about marriage or romantic love and use those rather than “Whither thou go, I will go” yada yada :) As for these two cases, I just think has no one known a close parent-grown child frienship love or a close friendship love with the same gender? I mean…exactly “both seem” and “something akin” even realizes it’s not point blank stated in… Read more »
Oh, sorry, thought you were being serious. Now I see you’re just of the “any stick is good enough to beat it with” school of Biblical interpretation. Your three paragraphs are three different contradictory arguments against the Bible, and you don’t really care which one works.
Let’s make it clear. Marriage in the Bible isn’t one man, one woman. it’s one man, his wife or wives, maybe a few slaves, concubines, and so on. Society has in most places changed these things- it’s no longer permissible, legal or socially acceptable to consider women “chattel”, to keep slaves, to keep concubines.
To attempt to use a few Biblical verses to justify discrimination isn’t the religious right that’s being claimed, it’s bigotry.
And yes, I am serious. How does the ability of two people to marry adversely affect you?
You need to decide if the Bible is the clear Word of God or not before we can even talk.
If so, then there are 2,000 years of deep Biblical scholarship that we can walk through.
If not, then what are you trying to prove? And yes, I’m serious.
I’m actually suggesting that bigotry and discrimination are being cloaked in biblical scripture. God’s word, inerrant and inviolate? Nope, I don’t see it.
So, you’re saying there *is* a “god” but he was somehow incapable of speaking into scriptures in any trustworthy way, or that there is *not* a god, so there is no transcendental moral law in a mere material universe?
I’m suggesting that there may be a god, but there exists no evidence in support of such a being- that evidence for evolution is overwhelming, that the Bible is far from inerrant and that it was most probably a collection of myths and fables adapted from other, previous cultures to provide a narrative guiding the Jewish civilization. That the new testament wasn’t composed by eyewitnesses, that it’s rife with plagiarism. That the religion for the past, say, 1800 years has been as much about accumulating power and providing a governing structure for society as it has about finding a way… Read more »
So, cries of outrage against gay “marriage” are … bad? And cries of outrage against Christianity (like yours) are … good?
Still don’t understand where your moral absolutism comes from.
Cries of outrage against homosexuality and gay marriage are discrimination. My opinion that the concept of Christianity is outdated and flawed is hardly the same- your attempt to distract from the bigotry evidenced here is misplaced. I don’t have the right, nor do I want it, to suggest that someone else isn’t free to worship as they choose in their church, mosque, synagogue or home. I don’t expect to do the same, but that has no bearing on someone else’s behavior until such behavior starts to limit my rights. Christians, including some in this thread, seem to want the right… Read more »
You seem to want us to set aside our Bibles because it’s your opinion? That’s not really a convincing argument.
No, I seem to want you to accept that LGBT persons have every right that you have and your Bibles don’t diminish said rights.
Well, I’ve enjoyed your sermonettes, Mr. Stranger on the Internet, but the point remains that I don’t know by what authority you tell other people that they’re wrong. I mean, I don’t want to sound snarky, but why should we listen to you? How have your become arbiter of rights?
How can you rebel against something that doesn’t exist Jon? That doesn’t make any sense.
“How can you rebel against something that doesn’t exist Jon? That doesn’t make any sense.”
Those are some deep thoughts. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Do you have any reason to believe God is real, or was your comment just a drive by snark?
Yes and yes. Nice of you to ask.
The sci-fi writer, philosopher and athiest-cum-Catholic John C. Write shared your question. How he answered it is in his conversion story here: http://www.strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/
“Doug Wilson is never wrong, especially not when up against people he hates”
Right back at ya, Matt.
“There certainly is a weakness there, and it is that when it comes to slavery you hem and haw and equivocate out of sentimentality towards the South.”
…so, in other words, you didn’t read what he wrote. Either that or you chose not to understand it. I’m trying to think of how else you could have come up with this straw man.
Unregenerate mind.
I stopped reading Matt at “hem and haw”
“Doug Wilson is never wrong, especially not when up against people he hates.”
Who does Doug hate?
Matt,
did you and I read the same article?
There are two types of rebellion. Subversive and Overt.
Homosexuals like to point to chattel slavery as a greator evil; however, it’s an open secret that slavery of the worst kind, prostitution of minors in SE Asia, is a very common homosexual tourist pursuit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/social-justice-until-theres-blood-the-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-cambodia/
Rod, you don’t have to go to Thailand or elsewhere in Asia because the drug cartels are running child sex slave rings right here in the good ol’ USofA.
Tenancingo Mexico. The primary industry is sex slavery in America. The whole town are pimps
The reason I keep reading this blog. Doug never flinches from explaining and going further to explain his thoughts. I’m so thankful you double down. May I have a double portion of your faith.
That is why they are troubled. They throw (what they think is) a triple combination of garlic, crucifix and silver bullet at the vampire expecting it to work. Instead, he just stands there grinning saying “Here’s Johnny”.
The connection between aame sex mirage and abortion is there all progressive steps on the pansexual movement.
Very interesting read! If the gospel is designed to be the liberty to every man, why didn’t Jesus and Paul teach for masters to free their slaves? Couldn’t that be seen as a nuetral position on slavery?
Jon, no, it was a subversive approach to slavery. And it worked.
Can you explain that a little more?
Jon,
What are the possibilities when grace visits both master and slave? What happens when someone, by the grace of God, confronts their own sinfulness, and by the grace of God receives the mercy that they KNOW they must have or perish?
One thing many people forget about Western History is that slavery was effectively ended in the Middle Ages by the teaching of Christian church. It ended gradually over many years, and without a shot being fired. G.K. Chesterton explains the process in his book “A Short History of England”. “Slavery was for the Church not a difficulty of doctrine, but a strain on the imagination. Aristotle and the pagan sages who had defined the servile or “useful” arts, had regarded the slave as a tool, an axe to cut wood or whatever wanted cutting. The Church did not denounce the… Read more »
In name, perhaps. Serfdom and slavery don’t radically differ, and Europe kept that for quite a while, and it kept indenture a good bit longer.
Serfdom and slavery were absolutely different things. Notably, serfs were not the property of a lord. They were persons living on the lord’s land. A lord did not have the right to evict a serf, and a lord owed a great number of duties to the serfs living on his land. The historical record belies the modern notion that serfs were slaves.
Allow me to recommend the book “Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths” by Régine Pernoud. She covers this specific topic among others.
Sure, but by the same token, masters were recognized to have responsibilities to their slaves, at least in the American system. George Fitzhugh is good on this topic. From the earliest days, it was illegal to require slaves to work on Sunday, treat them cruelly, or deprive them of food or clothing. Certainly this was different in degree from European serfdom, but it’s not clear to me that it was different in kind.
A slave was the property of his master, and could be sold to other masters. Slaves could also be bought from other masters because they were property. That is the essence of slavery: that a human being is seen as property. A lord could not buy a serf or sell a serf. He couldn’t even evict a serf from his land if he wanted to. On the manor, serfs married, had children, celebrated holidays, ran their own local courts to settle their own disputes, and other functions of day-to-day life all without the supervision of the lord. The serfs owed… Read more »
Once again, there are many good books out there on the subject. Most of the negative portrayals of serfdom in the Middle Ages are the results of propaganda stemming from French writers in the late 1700s who wanted to vilify the past as much as possible. (The term “Middle Ages” itself was coined at the time in such an attempt to degrade the Christian past of Europe.)
I agree with your summary of the facts.
Sherard Burns wrote an excellent essay on the subject in the anthology “A God-Entranced Vision of All Things” (freely available at Desiring God’s website: http://www.desiringgod.org/books/a-god-entranced-vision-of-all-things ).
Thanks for reading the chapter and taking the time to respond! I tend to disagree with what I believe is your conclusion, that Edwards’s life and theology should be discounted because of his sin (and I do agree, and think Burns agrees, that it was sin for Edwards to own slaves). I think, like Augustine, Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and many others whose thoughts and actions have had a great good impact upon the church, they have also never been perfect, and some of their ideas and actions have hurt their own witness and that of the church. I… Read more »
I agree that double standards are frustrating. I’ve not seen Doug apply them – he didn’t comment directly on Driscoll, but he did say that bandwagon piling on attacks on anyone is foolish. For myself, I think Driscoll has made some sinful, some foolish, and many wise decisions, and think that the attacks on him tend to be largely off base.
I disagree about Edwards – I think he did many things which were great actions. The fact that he sinned grievously in the area of slavery/race does not detract from those things. However, I would agree that his theology is the bulk of his legacy (though I think the Great Awakening owes quite a bit to him indirectly). I don’t wish to pit Driscoll and Edwards and the reactions the world has to them against each other. I agree that what happened to Driscoll was largely unjust, but I think Edwards in thought and life is worthy of study and… Read more »
Compared to the race slavery of the Spanish and Portuguese, we were benign. That should give you a clue how brutal those countries were. my .02
Nothing’s off the table. The Spainish and Portuguese introduced race slavery to the U.S. They brought the first slaves to sell in 1619. This whole discussion is a smoke and mirrors rabbit trail anyway. The Sureme Court has declared an active aggressive war against God.
Hi Jon Pagel
Pastor Wilson wrote on that very subject here: https://dougwils.com/books/how-koinonia-conquers.html
Doug, would you consider slavery in NT times to be equivalent to kidnapping? Because the OT commands death for anyone who does it. I have a hard time believing that Paul wouldn’t even verbally condemn it if it were.
One part of slavery, yes. I believe Doug has elsewhere condemned what the Bible calls “manstealing” as simple straight-up sin. Interestingly, this commerce was entirely the province of Northern ship owners, not the Southerners themselves, but all that sin somehow flows south of the Mason-Dixon line anyway.
Ben, yes. Paul condemns manstealing in the pastorals, and kidnapping in the OT was a capital offense. Moreover, Israel was prohibited from returning runaway slaves.
In his own exchange with Vine’s questions, James White makes a crucial distinction (as Doug has also made) between American chattel slavery and O. T. slavery:
“In the biblical context, slavery was often the last resort, and as such, was a life-saving institution, allowing a person to remain alive when all other possibilities were exhausted, even with a hope of redemption and eventual freedom.”
Just for interest’s sake. Joe Rigney recently tweeted this article by Mark Steyn: http://www.steynonline.com/7032/going-with-the-flow
Am wondering how the dissenters who wail about the USA’s slavery history are giving themselves a “get out of jail, free” card for supporting modern day third world slavery? If you claim you support no such thing, then tell me… who makes your clothes?
To believers, the ranking of sins seems a fools errand. We see homosexuality and slavery as very different: the former, lusts unrestrained with a clear biblical condemnation, versus the later, external coercion with a complex biblical response. As such, the tact of bringing up slavery seems to be a distraction at best. However, to a person struggling with homosexual attraction, I think that these issues are much more closely tied. Watching Matthew Vines argue for a re-interpretation of scripture ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY ), it is clear that he is in earnest to be “free”, able to reconcile the doctrines of the… Read more »
Wow. Excellent. This. “Sodomy is a particularly virulent form of slavery to sin, and slavery to
sin is the foundation stone for every other form of objectionable
slavery.”
Not only that. The antipathy to God’s sovereignty that is seen in Pelagianism’s many strains, and in all of the “you are not the boss of me” ethic (and seen in Vine et al) is emblematic of fundamental human rebellion against God. OTOH, God Incarnate says: “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.” Jesus has no problem with us being His “unworthy servants”. And regarding rebellion, Jesus also says “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to… Read more »
what’s not so disturbing is the acceptance of the Bible’s
incomprehensible hierarchy of ethics, it’s the wholehearted and willing
embrace of it.
Incomprehensible?
The people opposing being involved in same-sex behaviour are being coerced to be involved by others against their will. Whether that be celebrating so-called marriages, or being banned from saying negative comments, or, as likely to come, forced to perform such weddings. The pro-homosexual groups are refusing men the right of conscience. They object to the enslaving of men’s bodies why they themselves are seeking to enslave men’s souls.
Pastor Wilson,
Which is a better system, Jewish slavery or the American welfare state?
Better for whome?
“In doing this, they were imitating the angels who abandoned their proper habitation, and went after human women in order to marry them.”
.
Do you mean “mirage” them?
As one recent writer put it: Slavery, properly understood, is nanogovernment. The relation between a slave and a master is no different in principle from the relation between a subject and a sovereign. The relationship can be cruel and oppressive, or gracious and just. One can approve of the latter while still deploring the former.
Pastor Wilson, I fully agree that slavery is “a memorial to the sinfulness of man”, but can’t the same be said of any form of government? If not, what’s the sticking point?
Principle 1 from a list of 21 at https://dougwils.com/s8-expository/21-principles-a-christian-citizen-must-know-in-the-age-of-obama.html reads: 21 PRINCIPLES: 1: Civil government and rule is a blessing from God, and not a necessary evil. “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain” (2 Sam. 23:3-4). We are not anarchists. The rest of the post should clear… Read more »
Thanks.
Is not all mankind in slavery? Yes, we condemn in our modern times the practice of owning a person as property. But spiritually, if we do not acknowledge God, our Creator, then we are already in bondage (slavery) to sin. And if we have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and God as our Father in Heaven, we have been bought with a great price. We are not our own. We are now under that good and righteous Master.
This comment was sent to me recently. What think ye, Doug Wilson, James White, or anyone else of similar-mind? Quote: “[M]y response to the homosexual marriage decision is: So what? The government has never known what marriage is and should have never been involved in defining or sanctioning or recognizing marriage, no matter who it was between. The government has no business meddling in what is a religious matter, including defining/sanctioning/recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman. The word ‘marriage’ has already been bastardized by the government long before this decision. They should never have used the word.… Read more »
Another quote: “I would ask…anyone…who thinks that America was once ‘blessed by God’ and needs to ‘return to God’: What would such an America look like? Mandated prayer (to false gods) in schools? Marriage defined by the government as between one man and one woman, even if the man or woman has a previous spouse who is still alive [cf. Romans 7:2-3]? Homosexuals kicked out of the military (leaving the wicked heterosexuals in the wicked military)? Government enforcement of any of the other conservative ‘social issues’? When will you know that America has ‘turned back to God’? When 25% of… Read more »
The country needs to turn to God. The U.S. was a puritan country and as such closer to God than it is now, but ‘turning back to God’ tends to mean turning back to the puritans which falls short of the glory of God.
https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/everyone-who-promoted-doug-wilsons-gay-marriage-is-a-far-more-serious-problem-than-slavery-article/
Your views are disgusting. I don’t know how you can live with yourself with so much obvious hatred for others inside you.
“Your views are disgusting.”
Why are you bringing so much hatred to the conversation?
Let me sum up the article you linked to:
Blah, blah, strawman, blah, blah, blah, red herring, blah, blah, wilson is disgusting, blah, blah, slander, cry , tantrum, blah, blah.
It just never gets old, does it.
Cool. Keep justifying slavery. It’ll get you far in life.
“Cool. Keep justifying slavery. It’ll get you far in life.”
So sanctimonious. So Judgmental.
Wait, I guess that makes Sara “sanctimental”? Or maybe just “mental” lol.
Yes, it’s soooo self-righteous of me to be against slavery. You win!
I prefer ‘sanctimental’ but I just made that up, so I wont be offended if you don’t use it. And yes you are self-righteous. Thanks for admitting it.
Where is the “obvious hatred”? Is to disagree to necessarily “hate”? White also responded “Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery? If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery? Your ignorance of the topic of slavery is, sadly, very common, and, in our society, epidemic, probably due to the “it is a word that starts emotions and ends thought” syndrome. Slavery of all kinds has existed throughout human history, and continues to exist even to this day in various parts… Read more »
All I hear in this long-winded rant is a bunch of excuses to justify blatant racism and ownership of other human beings. You don’t have a moral leg to stand on, but you seem to be good at convincing yourself that you do. Thankfully views like yours (and Doug Wilson’s) are not the norm. I look forward to your eventual extinction.
I don’t see that. Can you point to one excuse out of the bunch which is offered to “justify blatant racism and ownership of other human beings”?
I just really don’t see what the point is in saying that there are different kinds of slavery and that slavery meant different things in biblical times. Like, okay??? We don’t live in biblical times and I think now in the year 2015 we should probably be working towards a society in which slavery in all it’s forms are condemned and abolished. I think it’s hard for modern people to separate slavery from it’s racial connotations, especially in the US and it’s baffling to me why some people here are acting like it wasn’t really that bad. The only people… Read more »
I don’t think that really answered my question.
I answered your question to the best of my ability. It’s hard for me to give just one example of justification for racism and ownership of others in this whole thing because that’s literally all I see here. All I see is a bunch of white fundamentalist Christians making excuses for and downplaying slavery because of their own prejudices and fears. Consenting adults being granted the legal right to marry one another is worse than owning people as property? Really? Doug Wilson is a known and proven racist and I think many of the people agreeing with him are, as… Read more »
“All I see is a bunch of white fundamentalist Christians” Have we all said we’re white? I must have missed that. And there are many shades of “fundamentalism”, have we all declared a shade of fundamentalism or evangelicalism? “making excuses for and downplaying slavery” Noooooooooooo, trying to delineate what the Bible does or does not say and putting historical context into it all…and making a distinction as to all of that with homosexuality since Vines insisted it was so doggone important to figuring out if we should support homosexual marriage. “because of their own prejudices and fears” I have no… Read more »
You are reading intent and motives and further views into what we’ve said. Of course it’s great to work towards a society in which slavery in all its forms is condemned. Of course it was really that bad in America. I’m not downplaying it, it’s simply a separate issue from homosexual marriage and the two can be discussed separately. It was Vines that had to drag some other issue in it to get the conversation off track of if we should support homosexual marriage. People can be wrong or right on one issue and be wrong or right on another.… Read more »
A girl with zero comprehension skills and no interest in reading positions sticks her fingers in her ears, closes her eyes, stomps her feet and wishes me dead.
Yes, I do in fact think the world will be a better place without white supremacists, misogynists and homophobes such as the author of this blog and many of his readers. Don’t let the door hit y’all on the way out.
So what kind of supremacy do you call yours? You advocate for a large group of people, many here, I imagine, to become extinct because you don’t like their views. Is that Sara Supremacy? Or Politically Correct Supremacy… what do you call it? Do you get hats?
I’d like to live in a world where everybody was treated fairly and equally and no one was discriminated against because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. That isn’t any kind of supremacy that I’m aware of. I don’t advocate supremacy of any group of people, unlike people here who seem to think white, heterosexual, Western Christians should apparently be in charge of everyone and everything.
So when you are looking, “forward to your eventual extinction.” and “don’t let the door hit y’all on the way out.” Is that an example of the fair and equal treatment and anti-discrimination you want? Who is in charge of those sentiments? Is that some sort of cleansing you expect to take place or is that just you, Sara, advocating for a lack of supremacy again?
I don’t mean a literal extinction, Carole. I mean an extinction of these toxic ideas being presented here that keep gay people and black and other minorities oppressed. I have nothing against Christians or God but I don’t think being prejudiced against others is a necessary part of being a Christian. Let go of your need to control other people, live your life to the best of your ability, and live and let live.
so again, shall I let go of my need for control like you are doing? Shall I stop trying to control others, in the same way that you are not trying to control folks here?
I’m not trying to control anybody. Why is being against racism considered to be controlling? That’s the real question here.
Well Sara, you came here, to tell folks here how they are disgusting, should be extinct, and that they should stop doing what they have been doing. You said we shouldn’t believe or think the way that we do, you are the one telling us what we need to let go of and how we should treat people. It sounds like you have decided how everyone else should behave….isn’t that controlling? How come you get to tell everyone what they should do? It just doesn’t seem equal and fair to me.
Your views are that another group of people should not have equal rights and protections under the law in a pluralistic society. How is that equal and fair?? You can believe whatever you want and internet the bible how you want but you don’t get to dictate the laws of the land. Me pointing out the reality of that is not trying to control you. But you thinking that your religion should dictate how others live IS controlling. There is literally nothing more controlling than that. And yes, I do think attitudes like that are disgusting.
I am clear on what you think is disgusting just not controlling.
So if I make laws that dictate how you have to behave and what you have to do, because i think you are disgusting, would I be controlling, or would that be okay?
If you make laws telling me what I have to do and how I have to behave then you are not controlling, is that right? When you do it, it is equal, but when i do it, it isn’t?
How is that fair, again?
I’m not sure what your asking.
I am asking why in the name of fairness, equality and pluralism, you come here and tell people that they and or their ideas should become extinct, and why you feel the need to dictate to folks how they should live. I would like, sara, you to be as fair to others as you wish them to be, but I am having trouble getting you to see that your comments suggest you believe yourself to be far superior to those you wrongly accuse.
I think racist, homophobic, and sexist views should become extinct. Yes, I do. Do you hold views that are racist, homophobic or sexist? If so, yes, I do think you should stop being that way because it’s just not a very nice way to be. To put it simply. But do I think you should stop being a Christian or living out your convictions in your own life? No. Absolutely not. Do you think that you should be allowed to hold racist, homophobic or sexist views, Carole? Do you think others should let you think ill of others without any… Read more »
Thank you for asking me my opinions, and no I am not racist, homophobic of sexist. I think we should all be striving to please God and to follow His word, for He is the creator and we are His creatures.
I am very glad you don’t want the worship of God to become extinct!
I also don’t think it is wise to start accusing folks or demanding that they stop holding beliefs that I am not even sure they have.
How about you?
I’m sure that many people here (not necessarily you) do hold prejudiced views. Doug Wilson himself co-authored a book that claimed that black people were better off under slavery. I’m not making false accusations. I’m reading the views expressed here and making judgements from that.
I read the book, did you?
so you are in charge of “right and wrong” and what is acceptable or not in an attempt to keep us from being? you’ve got the Book of Sarah to replace the Bible? we’ve yet to wish your views or you out of extinction. marketplace of ideas, freedom of speech and religion and all that. “Your views are that another group of people should not have equal rights and protections under the law in a pluralistic society. How is that equal and fair?? You can believe whatever you want and internet the bible how you want but you don’t get… Read more »
LOL, trying to eradicate racist and sexist views is not communism. It’s called basic human decency. I’m sorry that my desire to live in a world without racism and other prejudices is sooo unfair to you.
I’m not making any laws, Carole. Nor would I ever. I don’t plan on going into law or politics.
Thank God. And with that, I am going to bed.
Who in the world would enter a blog and say “YOUR eventual extinction” without disclaimer or recanting until further pressed. Real persuasive, real thoughtful interaction. Exactly. “I don’t think being prejudiced against others is a necessary part of being a Christian.” And to believe this is a Biblical vantage is in no way being prejudiced. ANY of us could end up a slave. There’s nothing prejudice in this opinion. “Let go of your need to control other people, live your life to the best of your ability, and live and let live.” Back at you. Definitely back at you. Had… Read more »
Thanks for your detailed lectures, Andrew. I have not changed my views on Wilson or most of these commenters, however. Ta ta.
“unlike people here who seem to think white, heterosexual, Western
Christians should apparently be in charge of everyone and everything.”
there is supremacy and arrogance in making assumptions with “who seem to think”. Has anyone here said “white heterosexual western christians should be in charge of everyone and everything”…that in no way represents me. no thanks to your brand of fair and equal treatment of my differing religious beliefs. One CAN believe as Wilson does without having any ulterior motives of wanting to rule the world or another human being.
So Sara, wishing for a better world, wants Doug and many of his readers dead. Dirty racists. White supremacists. Homophobes. But she does not wish for their literal extinction. Hmmm… This is the same Sara who presumes to “speak on behalf of black people” (who are not a monolithic group) on this blog, because they cannot do it themselves, and they need a great white female defender. Enter Sara, the Savior of oppressed black people everywhere and at all times! “I speak for them!” in a discussion like this, is a classic racist line… Jesus has come to be the… Read more »
I never once said that I presumed to speak on behalf of black people. Not once in this entire discussion. Please point to me one place where I said the words “I speak for black people” because you won’t find them. I actually said the opposite of that. Reading comprehension. Get some.
The rest of your comment is just nonsense to me so I’m going to just ignore it, okay buhbye.
You never said you do it, but every time you presume to tell other people how they are not allowed to talk about what black people have experienced, and then go on to talk about it yourself, you are in fact speaking on their behalf. You don’t claim to speak in their place, but you do presume to speak for their benefit, as though they need you to. I don’t know what more it requires to speak on someone’s behalf, than that.
LOL what? I am sharing *my* opinions. Mine. I’m not saying that black people need me to speak for them. Are there any black people even in this discussion? If there were I
would listen to them, but I’m fairly confident that this whole thing is just a conversation between white people, and yes, that includes me. But I am always on the side of equality and justice so taking a bold stance against racism and especially the downplaying of American slavery is what I feel is right. Sorry if you disagree.
And that’s exactly what Wilson’s/our opinions are. We don’t “speak for black people” but you say he’s white Western privileged and is presumptuous to speak for them…even though his writings are just that…as yours…OPINION. So if our opinions are considered “speaking for them” then why aren’t yours?
I put the links to a black guy’s opinions of Wilson’s books and opinions. Maybe read them to see how a BLACK guy isn’t reacting as you are (though you are free to react and have opinion…and so are we…)
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/02/a-black-and-tan-round-up/
I’m familiar with that author of the Gospel Coalition article you linked to. He wrote an article a couple of years ago about how gay people are icky. Literally that was his entire argument. That they’re icky. Very mature and logical. So forgive me if I don’t feel like reading his article. It actually doesn’t surprise me that he supports Doug Wilson consider he himself holds some pretty ridiculous views about other people who are different from him.
Saying someone is icky doesn’t seem a far cry from launching an opening salvo of “Your views are disgusting.”
Do you have a link to the article in which Thabiti Anyabwile “argued” solely that gay people are “icky”?
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/08/19/the-importance-of-your-gag-reflex-when-discussing-homosexuality-and-gay-marriage/
He received a lot of criticism for it, and rightly so.
Thank you for the link. After reading that, the ick-factor is definitely a major thesis, but it’s not his only argument, and, apparently, he didn’t originate it (he actually points to a gay activist being the one who broached the idea and suggested that that great effort be put towards “tak(ing) an issue all about sexual behavior and turn it into a discussion about everything but sexual behavior.”)
Sara, no. Just no. How can you possibly read that article and claim he didn’t have deeper logical progression. Far, far different than what you described. You seem to focus on one little thing that sets you off and null and void everything else and falsely represent what it, too because of whatever upsets you so badly. “gay people are icky. Literally that was his entire argument. That they’re icky.” How can you live with your conscience representing that article that way? And the word “icky” is not even in the article much less that being his entire argument. What… Read more »
As an aside, I very much disagreed with most of his articles I read this morning (but did appreciate his graciousness and tone and civility), but my disagreement did not keep me from wanting to see what else he had to say. And I’m glad I did. We can learn from each other here and there along the way in spite of our differences.
Um, he argued that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because he thought the sex they had was gross. Maybe he didn’t use the word icky but the point still stands that he encouraged people to 1) think about the kinds of sex they presume gay people are having 2) become repulsed by it 3) use that to deny them equal rights.
Nevermind the types of “gay sex” he lists are things that straight people engage in ALL THE TIME. Oral sex. Toys. Even anal. Not unique to gay people by any stretch of the imagination.
ROFLLLL… a far cry indeed…”icky” seems quite friendly compared to racist, homophobe, sexist, hateful, disgusting, irrelevant, and a wish for eventual extinction… And anyway, I don’t write people’s OTHER views off just because I disagree with them on another issue…we don’t all get it right all the time and we don’t all get it wrong all the time, either. . “Very mature and logical. So forgive me if I don’t feel like reading his article” I kinda sorta felt that way when I woke up this morning about chatting here with you again. But I wanted to read excerpts of… Read more »
Yeah, saying gay people shouldn’t have civil rights because you think they have “icky” sex (never mind the fact that straight people have the same kind of sex all the time) is very friendly.
Quibbles aside, I do kind of agree with Sara that much of Thabiti’s argument in that link seemed kind of weak. But you’re absolutely right: completely writing off someone because of a weak argument is pretty harsh and doesn’t really lend itself to meaningful discourse.
ROLF!!!!!!!!!!!!! I go to the linked article and hope to see point by point dialogue and refutation of Wilson’s key points presented in that article. I hope to see an honest effort at reason and logic convincing us why we are so misled, a point by point of why it isn’t “far more serious”. But no. Just calling out people that associate with Wilson’s response or agree with him. Yes, I see a “long-winded rant” there that must justify in one’s mind to wish other human beings who disagree with their “one true way” to become extinct. Isn’t looking forward… Read more »
You will note that I already said that I do not wish for a literal extinction of people, only of toxic and prejudiced ideas that I see presented here. If you want to align yourself with a white supremacist and make excuses for slavery, go ahead. But ideas like that are becoming increasingly fringe in today’s society which values equality rather than hierarchy. So, you know, good luck with that.
Doug Wilson: “The institution of slavery in human society is a memorial to the sinfulness of man. “. Doug Wilson Again: “And don’t try the hand-waving dodge that ancient slavery was somehow magically “better.” I know better, and no, it wasn’t.”
Sara (that’s you): “All I hear in this long-winded rant is a bunch of excuses to justify blatant racism and ownership of other human beings.”
Me: ????
Doug Wilson has also said that slavery was mostly “benign in practice” and that black people should actually be thankful that white Americans enslaved them because at least they got to learn about Christ which they wouldn’t have done if they had stayed in their inferior “pagan” home of Africa. He also has said that black culture is inferior to white culture. You can read the full quotes in the link I posted above.
So which views does he actually hold??
Sara said, “So which views does he actually hold??”
Wait, you dont even know his views on slavery and yet your condemning them?! What kind of strange world are you living in?
Um, Evan, I think you missed my point. I was asking JohnM if he knew what Doug Wilson’s real views on slavery were since he seems to hold contradictory stances on it. He has said on one hand that slavery was a “benign” institution and then he turns around and says that it was a “memorial to the sinfulness of man.” How can something be benign and sinful all at once? Doesn’t make sense. But yet, Doug Wilson has said both things at different times. Can you explain that?
“I was asking JohnM if he knew what Doug Wilson’s real views on slavery were since he seems to hold contradictory stances on it. He has said on one hand that slavery was a “benign” institution and then he turns around and says that it was a “memorial to the sinfulness of man.” How can something be benign and sinful all at once? Doesn’t make sense. But yet, Doug Wilson has said both things at different times. Can you explain that?” Um, Sara maybe you should find out the answer to that before you make broad sweeping judgments and condemnations.… Read more »
Evan, again you missed my point. I do know what Doug Wilson’s views on slavery are. He has defended slavery. Repeatedly. Him making some placating statement about how he’s totally not a racist and slavery was totally bad and a sin does not change the fact that he initially said that it wasn’t that bad and that black people should actually be thankful that it happened. You don’t say those things unless you actually believe them and no amount of backtracking can change that. I’m just asking supporters of Wilson’s if they can give an explanation for his seemingly contradictory… Read more »
So you’re asking us to do the hard work for you, when all the information you’re looking for is just a click away. If you came in here without the slander, name-calling, and overall judgmental spirit, I’m sure someone would’ve been happy to help you. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case,
I didn’t slander anybody. In order for it to be slander it would have to be untrue. I’m using Doug Wilson’s own words against him. These are things that he’s said. Views that he holds. Again, I am sorry if that is hard for you to deal with and accept but that is the reality. Why do you suppose he would say that slavery was benign and then turn around and say the opposite once he received criticism for his obviously racist views?
Sara, it is untrue because your have misrepresented what he said. I have read Wilson here and in Black and Tan. I do not find him contradictory or back-pedalling.
Then I am at a loss.
Sara,
That I don’t find Doug contradictory?
So we have the situation that Doug has ideas that he has penned and doesn’t think that they are contradictory. At least one reader who concurs (me). And likely many others.
But you find the ideas contradictory. So has it occurred to you that maybe you do not understand what he is saying? You may still disagree with him if you did understand, but better to know what he thinks and disagree than rage against what he does not think.
I understand what he’s saying just fine. I just disagree with him on a fundamental level.
So now you are claiming you know what Doug believes better than he does?
You do not understand what he is saying. It is obvious from how you argue and what you say. You think things are contradictory when they are not. Your paraphrases of his words are not concordant with what he has written.
It is not a problem to disagree with Doug. I disagree with a lot of his ideas. But you have zeal without knowledge.
I know what Doug Wilson believes because I have read what he believes. And he does contradict himself on race a lot. He says slavery is a sin and that it’s benign in the same breath. That’s not possible.
One does not know because he reads, he knows because he reads and understands. I am trying to point out that your comments show that you do not understand some of his writings.
I don’t always understand what I read. Probably no one does. But you have put yourself in a position where if you do not understand something, you a unable to hear someone tell you that.
Let’s say, for the sake of the argument you have misconstrued a small thing that Doug wrote somewhere. Just one. How can anyone show you this?
And you read the book, yes?
Yes.
Sara, So you weren’t responding to the content of this particular post at all? The full quotes – the full ones mind you – in the link you posted above don’t really show Doug Wilson holding the views you allege he holds either. For my part, I don’t agree with Doug’s views, as I understand them, when it comes to the American civil war and the CSA, and however relatively benign southern slavery was it was still too malignant to be accepted, but I don’t see where he has said of slavery what you make him out to have said.… Read more »
Sara, I get that you are passionate about equality and nondiscrimination. They are noble goals. But I sense in your writing a tendency to demonize those whose presuppositions differ from yours. When writing gets this polemical, it is hard for us to hear and understand each other.
Jilly, What is at work here is Sara arguing (if one may call it that) from her position.
She has as her foundational premise that Doug Wilson is racist. Therefor anything he says or writes about race is racist. Any appeals to logic or actually pointing out that he has explicitly stated over and over that racism is sin will not gain traction with her. She is not here to engage She is here to fight.
Sara, I’m sorry, but whoever that Stollar person is, they did not deal honestly with Wilson’s words. Cutting them up and out of context and placing them behind TRIGGER WARNINGS: RACISM AND HATRED AND BIGOTRY, ETC, ETC, ETC… and then saying that Wilson’s point is anything worse or other than what his point actually was is dishonest. One example, though I could go through and pull out more, is screeching about how it’s SO BAD that Wilson said that racism isn’t a sin against humanity all the while playing down the fact, that can be clearly seen and read, that… Read more »
Stollar did not take him out of context. Most of those quotes are from a book he co-authored called Southern Slavery As It Was which argues that black people were actually better off during the years of slavery because, hey, at least they got to be exposed to Christianity, unlike in their pagan home of Africa. It’s disgusting. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me or that blog link.
“Most of those quotes are from a book he co-authored called Southern Slavery As It Was which argues that black people were actually better off during the years of slavery because, hey, at least they got to be exposed to Christianity, unlike in their pagan home of Africa. It’s disgusting. Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me or that blog link.” Sara, please. Just stop. This has been dealt with so many times by either commenters on this blog or Pastor Wilson himself. There is really no need to go through this again. Please just do a simple… Read more »
I’m not interested in Doug Wilson’s excuses and backtracking. He co-authored a racist book. That’s the reality and I’m sorry if you don’t want to deal with that.
“I’m not interested in Doug Wilson’s excuses and backtracking. He
co-authored a racist book. That’s the reality and I’m sorry if you don’t
want to deal with that.”
Well then you have nothing to add to this conversation. Thanks for stopping by.
Sara,
You wrote, “They stole them from their home, forced them to do hard physical labor against their will, beat them, raped them, killed them.”
This was the status quo in pagan Africa. Do you approve of this cultural model?
This argument is the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” Do you not think that the Westerners should have known better to behave that way since they claimed to be followers of Jesus aka the Prince of Peace? They could have helped those people to create a better society, but instead they stole them and abused them for their own selfish gain. No excuse for that.
You will note that I did not make an argument, merely asked you to clarify yours. Do you approve of the rape and killing cultural model embodied by pagan Africa?
Um, of course not. But that’s beside the point right now. Besides, I think that “rape and killing culture” could pretty much sum up any culture in human history, pagan, Christian, or otherwise. Unless you think the Crucades, Salem Witch Trials, Southern slavery and the genocide of Native Americans carried out by Christians was totally okay.
If all cultures are pretty much about rape and killing, then why criticize one for doing what it does best?
Because I think at this point in our human evolution we need to start moving away from those models? Can we all agree that being civilized human beings is best regardless of culture or religion? That is a world I’d like to see.
Who is this ‘we,’ you speak of?
Humanity in general, obviously. Can you please stop being so obtuse?
meh
We might can agree that “being civilized human beings is best”, but given just the exchange between us I think shows we probably will not agree on what being “civilized” is. What exactly is the kind of world you’d like to see? Yes, of course, I already know the part about our thoughts being extinct and marginalized because they are so hurtful :) The sad point is that the world is bent to evil, and no one, no culture, no bias, not even a Christian, is perfect. These models canNOT be moved away from completely and forever successfully. We’re in… Read more »
You can keep on with your defeatist attitude about how it’s a dark world and there’s nothing we can do to change that if that is what suits you. I don’t believe that though. Much social progress and positive changes for equality have taken place in recent years and I have no doubt we’ll keep improving as time goes on. I have hope for the future and I am sorry that you do not. I guess that’s why your kind are going extinct. :)
We can bring light in the darkness, because of His light, as we can
“I have hope for the future and I am sorry that you do not. I guess that’s why your kind are going extinct. :)”
I have hope for the future, thanks for asking. Just not the same hope as you have. And my hope leads no where to extinction.
there are too many links for me to refer to…but this “man meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (inspired by Joseph’s slavery in the OT) language can be heard and read even among black churches and pastors. last mlk day, one black pastor made it his central point, “to be grateful for the good in spite of the bad” and recalled the “good” that had come from it…these experiences and views aren’t so cut and dry from one side or the other for us to get so overly “disgusted” with.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/truth.html
Context is everything. Black people are allowed to have their own views of slavery because they are the ones who went through it. I’m well aware that some black people try to glean a silver-lining from the vast amount of unjust suffering they have endured but that doesn’t mean make it okay that it happened to them at all. And Doug Wilson saying those things from his place of privilege as a white Western male who has never suffered oppression is in very poor taste, to say the very least. If all you can say about the supposed good of… Read more »
“Context is everything. Black people are allowed to have their own views of slavery because they are the ones who went through it. I’m well aware that some black people try to glean a silver-lining from the vast amount of unjust suffering they have endured but that doesn’t mean make it okay that it happened to them at all. And Doug Wilson saying those things from his place of privilege as a white Western male who has never suffered oppression is in very poor taste, to say the very least. If all you can say about the supposed good of… Read more »
Ask Doug Wilson. He’s the one who said it.
I don’t see you asking anyone much of anything. Blast and accuse and insinuate and judge.
I’ve done nothing but use Doug Wilson’s own quoted statements against him. If y’all agree with him, fine, but it doesn’t make you look like the most accepting and tolerant people on earth.
Are you modeling tolerance for us now as well? How do we do that again, by calling others disgusting?
Racism is disgusting. That is all I have said. Are you a racist? If not, then I do not think you are disgusting.
So is believing that hearing the gospel even under the most atrocious circumstances, the best thing that could ever happen to someone, is that racist?
If those same people are being beaten, tortured, raped, murdered and made to work hard labour with nothing in return? I would say yes.
So if I were raped and because of it I lost the use of both of my legs, but through that I came to know Jesus and was saved… which matters more in the end, the rape or the life everlasting? Is living a life with no pain, no tragedy better than an eternity with our Father? Is the perfect life now, better than me sharing the gospel that I learned, with my children.
I’m not going to tell you how you should feel about that. If being “saved” would make the experience of being raped somehow better for you, then so be it.
If you were a Christian, truly believing in the Word, wouldn’t you think that it would make it better for me?
As
long as the mind is enslaved, the body can never be free. Psychological
freedom, a firm sense of self-esteem, is the most powerful weapon
against the long night of physical slavery.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, speech, Aug. 16, 1967
If
physical death is the price that a man must pay to free his children
and his white brethren from a permanent death of the spirit, then
nothing could be more redemptive.
MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., Address at the Golden Anniversary Conference of the National Urban League, Sep. 6, 1960
Makes me think of Christ on the cross being crucified between the two thieves. “Today you shall be with me in Paradise.” And given the way history goes (thinking of Corrie Ten Boom at the moment)…Christ on the cross…going through unspeakable things to not just receiving Christ but to GIVING Christ in those times.
http://factsandfaith.com/corrie-ten-boom-concentration-camp-survivor/
I doubt we’d even agree on the definition of “racism” at this point.
Anyway, you said, “Your views are disgusting.” In all of our conservative western homophobic racist ramblings, no where have we said the “gay marriage” crowd views are disgusting as far as I recall. Shocking, unorthodox, troubling, perplexing, blatantly against the Bible, but disgusting? We all have our own stories, paths, growth in understanding, etc. Where is the progress in shutting down opposing views by coming in and flat out saying our views are disgusting…
So I take it you are not tolerant of racism. I thought you like tolerance? Wait which is it, you like tolerance or you don’t,,,,,and don’t back pedal please.
You’re not making any damn sense.
Sara, you are not living up to what you expect from others. You charged us with not being tolerant, indicating that intolerance was a bad thing. Yet, you are not tolerant of ideas you strongly oppose. So is it really tolerance that you want or not?
You also accuse a pastor of contradicting himself but you are contradicting yourself. I am trying to help you to see that.
I am not tolerant of intolerance, that is correct. Want a cookie?
Sorry I don’t get the cookie thing.
If you are not tolerant of ideas that differ from yours, you are not tolerant. If you don’t want people to be able to hold different beliefs then you don’t want pluralism.
I think I get the cookie remark and I don’t like it one bit. Sara needs to come back when she can be less combative.
I honestly don’t know what it is a reference to, but thank you jillybean.
Yes, I would be just fine with her pointing out a specific quote, explaining why she disagrees and asking our opinion–learning from each other is fine and cool and healthy…but the vitriol of intolerance that she is spewing that she expected would come from us…
“I am not tolerant of intolerance, that is correct.”
Wow.
Sounds like a pretty reasonable stance to me. Why do you think I should tolerate intolerance? I’ve already made it clear that I think racism and other “isms” are abhorrent. Why would I tolerate them?
The key is if you won’t tolerate intolerant opinions and thoughts…WHO gets to decide, WHO is in charge of defining these terms…we just can’t be so presumptuous if we really believe in equality and freedom to write people’s differing views off as “intolerant”. You wouldn’t want one of us writing your views off as worthy of extinction and not to be tolerated, right? Don’t you see how arrogant your approach is?
Do you guys think I’m going to like, call the cops on you and have you arrested because you said something that I think is racist or ignorant? All I’m going to do is tell you that I think you’re racist and ignorant. I’m not going to just keep my mouth shut if people are saying things that I think are hurtful and harmful to others.
No, but you are certainly headed in the direction of the types that would turn something into a lawsuit. Anyway. Why tell us that’s what you think without laying out WHY or WHAT exactly any one of us has said that makes you think that? No, you don’t have to keep your mouth shut, but don’t wish others mouth shut or irrelevant ESPECIALLY if you haven’t given them a chance to understand or clarify what you find “hurtful and harmful”.
Because you also said you believed in pluralism. You told us we should be tolerant of what you believe, then for equality and fairness, shouldn’t you also be tolerant of us even when you think we are wrong?
If I think you are wrong and being racist I will tell you so. If I think what you are saying is backwards and offensive, I will tell you so. I’m not going to call the police on you or anything, sheesh. I’m just going to let you know that your opinions are prejudiced. I’m not just going to keep my mouth shut and let you say whatever you want about other people without speaking up about it.
That’s the key. You don’t even KNOW our specific opinions. You just charged in and blasted us as a group.
I blasted Doug Wilson. Then you all started defending him. If you don’t want be assumed racist, don’t defend a man who holds racist views.
I think none of us (and we are hardly a monolithic group; I have had heated debates with several people here) are afraid you will call the police. In any event, they are too busy oppressing minorities in the inner city. Where I think you go wrong, Sara, is that you don’t engage on the issues; you essentially just name call. Most people here would take an accusation of racism quite seriously (depending on the source) because most of us regard it as a sin. I read Pastor Wilson’s book and I did not care for it. It is news… Read more »
Maybe I’m sick of engaging with people like this. Maybe I’ve done it all before and now all I want to express my disgust at the narrow-mindedness of it all. And my original comment was not even an attack on anyone here. I directed it at Doug Wilson specifically, who has a long history of saying things that are problematic, to say the least on the topic of race (and other issues regarding women and LGBT people). Other people decided to jump in and defend him and pretend like he didn’t say the things he said or that he was… Read more »
Your second comment about “rants” and “extinction” were in reply to my comment…and you said “your”. And if you are sick of engaging people like this and aren’t willing to be not so narrow minded yourself, then don’t do the injustice of doing a blanket judgment on all of us of being narrow minded without giving a chance for real dialogue. If we do believe his thoughts are worth defending or that he was taken out of context or that what he said didn’t equal racism, then hear us out and agree to disagree. Yeah, we all seem to have… Read more »
I don’t think I have a hope of getting through, but I will give it my best shot. Because, in your paradigm, only you get to define intolerance. It is a worldview in which only you (for the purpose of this discussion) gets to decide who is oppressed, who deserves our respect and compassion, who are the heroes and who are the villains. You are calling people racist using your own intuition about what racism is. And you are grossly oversimplifying. You are using the “racism–I know it when I see it” test, which shuts down argument without addressing the… Read more »
Again, Doug Wilson is the one who I initially called out for being racist because of some blatant racist things he has said. Since other people came to his defense and started downplaying what he said then I assumed they agreed with him. What else was I supposed to think? If people don’t want to be assumed racist then they shouldn’t defend people who hold racist views. Saying that slavery wasn’t really that bad, that black people should be thankful that they were saved from their “pagan” home and that black culture is inferior is racist as hell.
Saying that slavery wasn’t really that bad, that black people should be
thankful that they were saved from their “pagan” home and that black
culture is inferior is racist as hell.
I deny those comments are what Doug said. But these comments, in and of themselves, are not inherently racist.
How can you deny that that’s what he said when that is explicitly what he said? And yes, they are inherently racist.
Because you are paraphrasing and I think you are doing it poorly. Post the verbatim comments for those 3 claims.
How is it racist to claim that a particular culture is inferior to another?
How is it racist to say that being saved from a pagan culture is better than dying estranged from God?
How is it racist to say slavery is not as bad as someone claims it was?
You seriously don’t think it’s racist to say that “black” culture is inferior to “white” culture? What does that even mean? Black people are not a monolith that automatically have a distinct culture. Africa is a huge continent and each country has it’s own culture. And black people exist on many other continents and have unique cultures, as well. It’s racist to assume that somebody’s skin colour automatically puts them in a specific culture and that people that have another skin colour have a superior culture. Also, during slavery black people were routinely raped, murdered, beaten and forced to do… Read more »
No I do not think it is racist to consider one culture inferior to another. Now personally I think that some cultures are good in some areas and some in others. But I have no qualms about saying that the cannabilistic culture of Papua is worse than the Saxon culture of Alfred, or the pre-Christian culture of Fiji is worse than the Singaporean culture of today. No one is downplaying the horrors of rape. But to deny that something is as bad as what is claimed in not a racist idea. To say to someone that you agree that something… Read more »
But Doug Wilson said that “black culture” is inferior. Black. Culture. What is black culture? Like I said black people are not a monolith. If you are looking at somebody’s skin colour and assuming things about their culture based on that then that is racist. That’s a lot different than saying that some aspects of certain cultures, like cannibalism that exists in Pupua is less than desirable.
So black culture when, and why?
You admit that culture could be inferior. So the question to establish racism is does Doug think that all black cultures at all times will always be inferior to white cultures? Or is a christianised culture (which is predominantly white currently) better than a pagan culture, in which case there are non-white cultures past present or future which may be better than white cultures?
If the former then racism.
But if the later, but he is incorrect about black culture being inferior at the time, then wrong, but not racist.
He said that “Northerners and Southerns were misled by the obvious inferiority of black culture.” That is a racist statement.
He also said “The tragedy of pagan Africa is more significant than the tragedy of southern slavery. In Christ, whites are a blessing to blacks.” More racism. White people were not a blessing to blacks. They stole them from their home, forced them to do hard physical labor against their will, beat them, raped them, killed them. That is not something to be thankful for. That is not a blessing. Only a racist would think that it is.
Context
But Sara, we have already established that a culture can be better or worse. So that statement is not racist on the face of it. It is a claim about culture. If black culture is too diverse to be defined as a culture then Doug has made a category error. If it is not then Doug’s assessment can be judged on its merits. And his claim that the block culture was inferior because it was pagan and the subsequent comments about ancient white culture being inferior show that he does not think that white culture is better because it is… Read more »
I’ll say what I said above, if the Christians back then were really concerned with the “pagan” souls of the black Africans they could have shared the gospel with them and taught them about Jesus. Nobody needed to be enslaved. Those Christians were working in direct opposition of Christ in their actions towards black people. The issue here is that Wilson and many others seem to think that slavery, while bad, is somehow not really *that* bad because at least those savage and inferior pagan blacks got introduced to Christianity. That is an absolutely horrible attitude and I fail to… Read more »
Sara, I agree with much of your comment here. But I don’t see your comment (the first half) as incompatible with my beliefs or what I have read from Doug. Of course they should have just told them about Jesus. Of course them were sinful for enslaving Africans. Further, I would be willing to excommunicate men that capture men for the sake of enslaving them and say that their behaviour is incompatible with claiming to know Christ. And I think severe criminal sanctions should be taken. That some men became Christians despite the slave trade is God’s grace in a… Read more »
Context
That looks like a good book!
PLEASE see Valerie’s link below to the page and paragraph about this. This is what I read this morning, and you are NOT representing his culture views fairly at all. In fact, he goes to great lengths to remind us that European culture is not the all-time perfect role model. Please. He IS saying that “some aspects” can be less than desirable of ANY culture. It’s not a blanket superior endorsement or rejection.
“You seriously don’t think it’s racist to say that “black” culture is inferior to “white” culture”
That would be racist, what Doug actualy said was that christian culture is superior to pagan culture.
If he wanted to express his opinion that Christian culture is better than pagan culture he could have said that without alluding to the “obvious inferiority” of what he called “black
culture.”
Also, black culture does not necessarily = pagan culture. Unless of course you are a racist who is running on certain assumptions about black people.
From black and tan: “Both northerners and southerners were misled by the obvious inferiority of black culture at the time, which had nothing to do with whether blacks bore the image of God in man and everything to do with whether the gospel had yet had an opportunity to do it’s work in black culture. There are few things funnier than watching Europeans and those of European decent look down at primitive cultures, taking pride in themselves. But what do you have, St Paul asks, that you did not receive as a gift? And if you received it as a… Read more »
I’m still not seeing how this isn’t racist or at the very least extremely insenstive. So because “black culture” was not Christian at the time that somehow made it excusable for white Westerners to kidnap them and make them into slaves? White people were really doing black people a favor by taking them as property because black people had the “wrong” spiritual beliefs and forcing them into slavery exposed them to the “right” beliefs so it all balances out in the end? That’s a horrible thing to say. If the concern of those Christians had truly been for the eternal… Read more »
“So because “black culture” was not Christian at the time that somehow made it excusable for white Westerners to kidnap them and make them into slaves? White people were really doing black people a favor by taking them as property because black people had the “wrong” spiritual beliefs and forcing them into slavery exposed them to the “right” beliefs so it all balances out in the end? That’s a horrible thing to say.”
Nobody said that.
Um, not outright but that’s pretty much what is being implied here. Why else make such a big deal about them being pagan and how that automatically made them inferior to the much more civilized (ha) Christian culture of the West? because it really doesn’t matter what those Africans believed or didn’t believe. It’s actually irrelevent. None of this should have happened and the exposure to Christianity does not change that. Slavery is wrong and should never have happened. Period. That is literally all anyone needs to say about it.
Doug said their culture was obviously inferior, not automaticly inferior, due to things like human sacrifice, idolatry and, mindless superstitions. And that their beliefs caused these obviously inferrior qualities in their cultutre. He goes on about it becsuse, logicaly, if the lack of the gospel caused these qualities then a rejection of the gospel by our culture will bring similar if not identical qualities to American culture.
Okay, but the fact of the matter is that Christian culture possessed many of those things that you apparently believe to be unique to black/pagan culture. I mean, what the heck even was the Southern institution of slavery if not human sacrifice?? Black lives were sacrificed every day in that era of American Christian culture so that they (white Christians) could have a better life. Nothing about that screams superiority to me in any sense. You don’t get to claim superiority over another culture if your culture is literally responsible for the enslavement of an entire race. Sorry. Doesn’t work… Read more »
You can call dieing while a slave human sacrifice, but slave owners didn’t have a habit of killing their slaves. Being a slave and being a sacrifice are not equivelent.
As an aside they didn’t enslave an entire race.
OMG, you can’t be serious right now. I don’t think I can talk to you people anymore. My faith in humanity is waning by the minute.
Calling the Southern institution of slavery “human sacrifice”…I don’t see it listed as a Wikipedia example…seems a bit of an overstretch.
And why just “Southern”? Slavery was in the North and the South. Why is why I guess I keep seeing these black people speaking for themselves wanting the U.S. Flag to come down because it is more hurtful than the Confederate Flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
All I was trying to say was that black people lost their lives in great numbers because of what white people did to them. They had to sacrifice their lives and their freedom because white Christians in the US felt they were entitled to own them. And lets not forget that lynching was a very popular thing in the years that followed, as well. If you want to accuse Africans in their pagan countries of being savages then you are going to have to admit the same about white Christians in America. There is no “obvious inferiority” of black culture… Read more »
The word “race” is a very racist term, you know. There is only one race, one blood. Different ethnics, but one race.
That literally changes nothing about the content of my comment. But cool.
Thanks. I think it’s a very cool wonderful concept/fact to propagate. We’re not talking about some distinct group of people from ourselves when we talk of slavery or other atrocities…we are speaking of our own. It is good vs. evil, not us vs. them. That’s why you will find, scattered among the sordidness of history, friendship master/servant or post-war stories or freedom stories from all cultures, why MLK rebuked blacks for not working with whites rather than joining other blacks in bitterness and revenge…that good join hands with good, regardless of skin color…to fight the hate wherever it be found…we’re… Read more »
Sara, 1) Objectively, where would it have been nicer to live in the 19th century: as a white person in America or as a black person in Sub-Saharan Africa? On average, where would you have found better medical treatment? Better sanitation? Better education? Better libraries? Better science? Better theology? Better arts? That is the sort of stuff Doug is saying that both northern and southern whites knew to be objectively superior. 2) And he’s saying that those things were the result of the gospel transforming the culture over centuries. 3) But because of the misplaced pride of American whites at… Read more »
Was the High-Jazz culture (mostly Black people) superior to today’s hip-hop culture (mostly black culture)?
An I racist for preferring Dizzy Gillespie to Snoop-Dog? Am I racist for noticing a difference?
I don’t know. I like hip hop and jazz so I’m not going to rank them. But I really don’t think preferred musical genres or performers is the same as saying black culture is inferior to white culture.
as saying black culture is inferior to white culture.
We can say that one black culture was superior to another black culture. Or is this where you spring “Context is everything” so as to avoid thinking?
???
Talking about musical preferences is not the same as renegading an entire culture. Why are you making these false equivalencies?
Sara, A particular culture created High Baroque; it was not the culture of Detroit, it was the Catholic culture of Rome. (I think.) A particular culture created the Symphony; it was not the culture of Peoria Indiana, it was the culture of Germany (I think–Haydn was in there somewhere) In Biblical terms, “you shall know them by their fruits” applies to Cultures. You can tell some things about a people by ‘the stuff’ they left behind. One example of ‘the stuff’ is music. Others are art and architecture. Others are people they nourished and let flower. Not only can we… Read more »
Wilson did not “renegade an entire culture”. The excerpt proved that was not his intent.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/04/02/a-black-and-tan-round-up/ I read the excerpt from Wilson’s book…he was NOT making a blanket statement that all black culture from all of time was inferior…nor was he making a blanket statement that white culture from all of time was superior…there was much more to his explanation than that. No one is saying these things were “no big deal”. You keep saying it’s “racist to assume”…and yet you keep assuming things over and over about us. Since you are white, I don’t know what to call this…bigotry? Yikes. I just don’t go for judgmental words like that, but if you’re going to… Read more »
Okay, Andrew. Please go complain about me to your “other-ethnic” friends and stop flooding my inbox. Thanks.
If you don’t want your inbox flooded, turn off notifications. But if you’re going to post stuff on a blog, people will respond to you.
Thank you for the advice, you wise wise human.
That’s not advice, that’s basic common sense, nor do I pose as particularly wise in giving it. You are the one who is looking foolish by inviting responses and then complaining when you get them.
Andrew has just taken to responding to each and every one one of my comments, sometimes several times saying the same thing over and over, so my email is full of messages from him specifically which is why I said that. I get how blogs work, but thank you again. You are clearly wise.
Hello, hello, again. You have such a way of representing the truth. “each and every one”…no, I purposefully held off till afternoon so I could think through your points of discussion and see what others said throughout the day. I have repeated the links and about that pastor because I couldn’t tell what was getting lost in these threads, and I thought those would be of interest to you. I also wanted to ‘try again” to be my usual happy go lucky figure it out and laugh along the way self rather than letting your abrasive words having me choose… Read more »
Yay!
Well, let’s go point by point. I don’t think it is racist to say that southern slavery really wasn’t that bad. I think it is foolish and wrong, but not racist. I have read this work, and the authors do not say that while slavery would have been terrible for white people, it wasn’t that bad because they were black. That would be a racist position. What I understood them to say is that while chattel and race-based slavery was sinful, it was not, in the hands of some Southern whites, as cruel and wicked as it might have been.… Read more »
Wow indeed. In other words: I tolerate all opinions except those held by fundamentalist Christians. Everyone should have a voice–except for conservatives whom I suspect of clinging to their white privilege. The pastor is a racist, all cops are presumptively evil, and everyone’s out of step except my Johnnie.
LOLOLOL
I betcha we look very accepting and tolerant by still talking to someone who looks forward to our extinction. You are making us look very good :)
No, you guys still look pretty bad.
Oh, did you take a vote?
“Ask Doug Wilson. He’s the one who said it.”
No, you just said it. I’ll just assume then that you cant support your assertions. I’m not surprised. Please, carry on with your rant.
I see, so if a black man says something it can be true. If a white man says the exact same thing, it is disgusting.
Sara, you my love, are racist!
Awww, Carole, you are doing exactly what I was expecting someone here to do at some point. Accusing me of racism just because I acknowledge that white privilege is a thing. Thanks for being so predictable.
oh no, thank you! In the name of pluralism you have told us we may not hold ideas you disprove of. In the name of fairness, you condemn a man’s book without reading it, and in the name of equality you call the same idea good from one man and disgusting from another.
Is there anything such as truth for you, Sara or let me guess, that too depends on context?
I read Doug Wilson’s book and I found it awful, offensive, and racist. So there’s that.
Which book did you read? He has many
I read Southern Slavery As It Was. It made my skin crawl.
My best advice, if you really desire understanding and dialogue, is to pull that book out or from memory, post a comment without any “racist” “obvious hatred” “eventual extinction” garbage in it…and ask your top 3-5 questions kindly, from human being to equal human being, for Wilson or someone from this vantage who has read the full book to address or clarify.
I’ve already done that in the past in previous discussions about Doug Wilson and his work. Guess what I still think? IT’S RACIST.
“About” Doug Wilson. I’m new here. So others remember Sara, and I’m getting worked up about nothing? Which thread was this on here? And then why come back if you already knew what was “so predictable”? Just comment over at Stellar Stollar’s site and we’ll get the jist of your opinions rather than knowing we won’t have the chance to agree to disagree because you presume to know what we believe anyway.
“IT’S RACIST.”
Hokay. We’ve got your message. Thanks.
Cool!
LOLOLOL
“In the name of pluralism you have told us we may not hold ideas you disprove of.”
LOLOLOL
You confessed your obvious motive. Did you really expect it to go any better with your first comment being,”Your views are disgusting. I don’t know how you can live with yourself with so much obvious hatred for others inside you.” and your second being, ” Thankfully views like yours (and Doug Wilson’s) are not the norm. I look forward to your eventual extinction.” As for this–blacks and whites not allowed to express the same opinion–that is not equality, that initiates black supremacy. There can be any one in any culture or ethnic or belief that can be arrogant to lift… Read more »
There’s no such thing as black supremacy. Black people are an oppressed minority. Please learn about white privilege, thanks.
Are you freakin’ kidding me? Yanking our chain here?
Just Google it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
It may be an ideology but it has no sway in our society. Black people are systematically oppressed. Consider that in the US today unarmed black teenagers are being gunned down in the streets and black churches are being burned to the ground. Does this sound like supremacy to you?
Is it true or is it false that Africans who came to America as slaves should be thankful they were exposed to the gospel and came to know Jesus as their Lord and one true King.
Black people can feel however they want to feel about that. Some of them might choose to see that as a silver-lining. But many of them won’t. There are a lot of black people who are not Christians and I’m sure they would rather that their ancestors were not held as slaves.
But it is either truth or it is not independently of what you or I think. Is Jesus Lord or isn’t He?
Some people think he is, and some people think he isn’t.
For the people who think He is, for the people who truly believe that He is the one and only King and that to know Him is to know peace for eternity: would it be truthful to say that whatever the circumstances you came to know Him are, you should be thankful for them, because it was through them that you were truly set free.
If that is what you need to tell yourself in order to deal with personal trauma, go for it. But you can’t speak for everyone.
But we are still allowed to speak what we believe, yes?
And if I believe that about raped women who come to Christ, and I say it, will I be a sick and twisted sister who supports rape? Or can I just be a Christian who believes that Christ trumps everything.
You can believe that if you want. But rape victims who disagree with you can voice their opinions as well. They can tell you that you are wrong. You cannot silence them.
I don’t want to silence them. But I don’t want to be called a rape lover by someone who doesn’t know my story.
Do you see what I am saying?
“Black people are allowed to have their own views of slavery because they are the ones who went through it. I’m well aware that some black people try to glean a silver-lining from the vast amount of unjust suffering they have endured but that doesn’t mean make it okay that it happened to them at all. And Doug Wilson saying those things from his place of privilege as a white Western male who has never suffered oppression is in very poor taste, to say the very least.”
So is Doug not allowed to have an opinion?
“So is Doug not allowed to have an opinion?”
9 words to my thousand. Simply put and better said :)
He can have an opinion. But his opinion is racist.
Have you read anything Doug has writen that wasn’t quoted by R.L. Stollar?
I’m a little weary of your determining a superior role of what is “okay” for people to think about what happened to them or not, or what is okay for someone to believe or not…you wouldn’t want us to say that to you, and I’m having a very hard time NOT saying it to you…that you are not okay in your attitude and assuming our other views and intents…or what others think. so you disagree with Wilson, or take his views to mean something nefarious or racist, so be it. i don’t have to be a German to have an… Read more »
You think I come off as superior and you’re a fan of Doug Wilson? A man who literally writes everything with a smug sense of satisfaction that he has “stuck it” to his opponents? Everything about him has an air of superiority. And yes, he holds views that I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with because they are toxic. If you agree with him that is your prerogative, but like I said, these types of views are not as popular as they once were. Y’all are a fringe group now and becoming more and more irrelevant each day. I for one am happy… Read more »
I don’t know much about Doug Wilson. I’m still learning about him. I’ve seen things I agree with, and things I don’t just as happens with other blogs. A fan? I just entered the blog the other day by seeing a link elsewhere to his response to Vines. It was excellent. I’m a fan of that particular post. Just because I’m here commenting means I’m a fan? or by association means I’m supporting all of his views? No. I’m a little lot weary of Christian leaders being cowards and being silent from fear of being called intolerant. And in that… Read more »
I am really glad you are here. You have added a lot to the discussion!
I keep imagining ryansather wishing I’d stick to 4 words rather than thousands…and I keep waiting for my “eventual extinction” to happen any moment…
:D
Sara,
You said, “Black people are allowed to have their own views of slavery because they are the ones who went through it.”
Since most whites are descended from serfs, are they allowed to have their own views on slavery?
You also said, ” And Doug Wilson saying those things from his place of privilege as a white Western male who has never suffered oppression is in very poor taste, to say the very least.”
Are you white?
I am white but I’m also not the one trying to speak on behalf of black people and claim that slavery was somehow justified because Christianity was the dominant religion in the West.
Isn’t your deigning to speak on behalf of black people just a more benign form of racism?
Um, no? Allowing marginalized people to speak for themselves and have their own voice instead of presuming to speak for/over them is actually the opposite of racism.
How does whites speaking on behalf of blacks allow black people to speak for themselves?
What? I don’t think whites should speak on behalf of blacks and nowhere did I say that. They need to stop doing that.
What Job means, I think, is that you do not like Wilson “speaking on behalf of blacks” with his opinions, yet you are white, and with your differing opinions, also speak on behalf of blacks. It’s just faulty reasoning, and doesn’t work out or we’d all have to be quiet about almost any historical topic. Having an opinion or speaking what we’ve reasoned or studied out about a situation, does not mean these marginalized people can’t speak for themselves. They can, and do, blog, write books, teach in universities, etc. etc. I’ve spent time this morning reading a BLACK man’s… Read more »
You continue to mispresent Wilson, me, whomever. I spent time reading whatever excerpts I could find of Wilson’s two books, as well as other people’s opinions (including blacks). I’m even more convinced he is no racist.
As far as misrepresenting me, I have nothing “good” to say of slavery nor do I attempt to “justify” it. My main goal was to emphasize that we can have these opinions of historical context and Biblical interpretation and NOT be racist, and that everyone’s opinion and existence is to be respected.
Actually ‘Southern Slavery as it Was’ argues that the civil war wasn’t nessessary to end slavery.
Really? Sounds interesting. Certainly NOT a radical racist thought. I was recently reading the expressed opinions of those states’ leaders at the Constitutional Convention when they were trying to decide on the slavery compromise so that all states would join the union. There was a good amount of representation, from north, south, non-slave holding to slave holding states encouraged and saying ALREADY that slavery was already being rejected in most states and that given time they felt assured, without undue pressure, it would continue to do so.
Yeah, and he definitely needed to degenerate black people and their culture in order to get that point across. Naturally.
Doug denegrates any and all culture that isn’t infuenced by the gospel.
And that’s a problem. How do you expect to reach people and get them to come to Christ if all you do is degenerate them and make them feel like they are inferior to you?
Not “inferior to him” but inferior to Christ or biblical principles. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
I still shake my head at how you can so well say this of others and not see it in yourself. Yes, Sara, “How do you expect to reach people and get them to come to your truth if all you do is degenerate them and make them feel like they are inferior to you?”
“fringe” “irrelevant” and all that…
By definition these views are fringe and irrelevant. Since most people do not hold these views in 2015, they are fringe and becoming irreverent. That’s just…a fact.
You used fact as a slam…the being glad they are becoming irrelevant. That was my point.
And being irrelevant is something is an OPINION. And a haughty one at that.
Your views HERE are fringe–as far as you mean “not widely agreed to”. But in no way would I call any human beings views “irrelevant”…gay marriage was once was fringe and not so popular but you would advocate people to consider them…
Well, I am glad that they are becoming irrelevant. Do you want me to lie? Very well.
I’m so sad that conservative Christianity that upholds racist, misogynistic and homophobic views in larger society is dying out. *sad face*
There. Are you happy now?
The Christian era started with 11 frightened men in the Pagan Roman Empire. An empire that knew how to sin and slay beyond your imagination.
From those seeds grew two civilizations–Christian Europe and Christian America.
Now America’s ‘elite’–people like you–want to be Rome. Do you really think you are the one who is going to exterminate us Sara?
I never said that I personally was going to kill you. I don’t wanna kill anyone, being that I’m a pacifist. I just want bigots to sod off.
Bigot:
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Well, I guess it depends on the opinions doesn’t it?
I don’t tolerate intolerance. If your opinion is that gay people shouldn’t have civil rights under the law then that is a bigoted opinion and no I will not respect it.
So , you are a bigot, then.
Nah.
By the definition of the word you are.
Here’s the problem Sarah: You want to pose; you don’t want to think.
Thinking will set you at odds with some people, probably some people that you want to like you. So, you pose.
Thinking is done alone; you prefer to be in a group. So, you pose.
You are very transparent, typical and boring. Your pose carries no weight; you are pretense and air. Its sad. God created us to be much more than that.
Good luck.
LOL, are you my psychologist now? Get out of here with this crap, dude.
no.
After all we’ve tried to explain and talk through, if you still consider us to be racist, intolerant, and not to be tolerated…I really fear for the day when someone is truly intolerant towards you. I don’t wish it for you, I just hope you’ll learn to recognize and appreciate when it’s NOT there. It’s not here.
along with denigrating the culture (not the person) you present the gospel, which is the power of god unto salvation.
Sara, Stoller’s article just shows that he has serious deficiencies in reading comprehension. Most claims he made were refuted within the actual text of Wilson’s that he quoted.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. I find no context which would make any of that okay.
Sara, your comments on this blog seriously offend me. Please apologize for your racist and rude comments.
No.
Sooooooooooooooooooo, then what do you want us to do with the racist and rude comments you seem to think you have read or with the racist, homophobic, sexist, supremacist thoughts or beliefs you know we all have? What’s the point of being here if you don’t want us to apologize, acknowledge or recant or repent?
I’m not the one here who’s being racist.
One thing I’ve learned in reading what Doug Wilson writes. If he is wrong, his wrongness is not based in ignorance or laziness. This guy is consistently well read and well thought. My only objection is, be softer to those outside of Christ and harder to those in of Christ. And I’m sure this is true in your personal and pastoral life, but I don’t think it’s apparent in your blogging life.
Most of these he is firm (“harsh”) with are those that indeed claim to be in and of Christ. There’s the quandry. They claim to go be Christ-followers and Bible-believers. And reminiscent of the NT church, it is worth a firm debate to keep doctrine and truth in tact, and to “love Him and keep His commandments” to then indeed reach those outside of Christ with a confident compelling “For God so loved the world…”
Sure. I don’t think Doug is a “hater” but I think if we are all honest we can see how “haters” could use Doug’s words and arguments to propel their sinful agenda. He’s a little closer to that ditch than not (in his blogging).
That’s quite a high standard (impossible?) to attain unto for any of us. In the end, we can only answer for ourselves to conscience and God on what we believe is truth and how we present it. Plus, we all have our own colorful personalities. Using that same logic, I’m quite sure “haters” could Christ’s words and arguments and tone (Paul’s, for sure!) to propel their sinful agenda. Oh. Wait. They already do. I know what you mean though as far as desiring a good balance, and it’s all the harder on a screen for it all to come across… Read more »
Yeah, I think it’s good to follow that logic all the way down. Haters can (and mostly do) use everything they can. I don’t think this is a problem Doug needs to solve, rather a tension to manage. I think it’s also good for all of us to understand that online communication is an atom bomb to civility. So while Wilson has experienced the “buzz saw” of tolerance in person, I know he’s experiencing it 10 fold online. I do wonder what it would do to my state of mind.
Those who are “outside of Christ” do not approach apologetics without their own set of presuppositions. Scripture is clear, Romans 1;19-23, all of mankind DOES have knowledge of God, but suppresses it with-in himself! So, man has no excuse. When a generation celebrates sin, the time for a soft approach in already long past.
True, but to be outside of Christ is to not have the holy spirit or the ability to view scripture clearly. Knowledge is one thing, repentance is another. “It’s His kindness that leads us to repentance.” Again, this isn’t to say that Pastor Wilson is not kind in his personal or pastoral life. I just don’t think people are picking up kindness on his blogs.
It is clearly obvious that many who sit in pews today are the poster children of 2 Timothy 4;1-5. having Itching ears that will not endure sound doctrine.
You are perverting scripture and ethics.
http://americablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
“You are perverting scripture and ethics.
http://americablog.com/2015/04…”
Yes, that article does completely pervert scripture and ethics. Thanks for linking it.
Was my comment deleted or is my phone just not loading it?
Looks like it was deleted since I can see my other one so I’m recommenting in the hope that I’m not censored yet again
I said the article is perverting scripture and ethics
http://americablog.com/2015/04/god-fine-marriage-equality.html
I see all three of your comments.
Now, which article is perverting scripture and ethics? Pastor Wilson’s or the one you linked to?
Sorry, must be my phone, sorry.
Obviously I meant Wilson’s, which my article rebuts
I stopped reading at: So the Bible doesn’t really say anything about homosexuality one way or the other
This topic has been explored in great depth on a previous blog post here.
I will try to find the link for you.
(To Frequent Commenter Matt Do you remember that post where you completely eviscerated that gay professor over a conversation about N.T. Wright and the prevalence of homosexuality in the Rome Empire when Paul was writing? thx)
fwiw, the only person I have seen censored here was a troll with the handle Mr. Peanus who linked to some pornography. Healthy and robust debate is the norm here.
And I still can’t understand why his name didn’t tip me off!
You and me both.
Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God…and the 2nd greatest is to love our neighbor as ourselves. The breaking of the greatest commandments result in the greatest sins. Just going by what Jesus said.
Do we love our neighbor by celebrating sin and unbelief? Or do we show real love by warning them of the coming wrath of God?
Well, evidence would help.
Oh dear, the leaven of Herod runs strong with this one! John 8;14-21
Are you aware of the definition of the word evidence?
To the outsider, only parables will be given. Mark4;11-12
So, nope. You’re just a sad little human that quotes a fairy tale.
Would you accept Koran quotes as evidence that the claims in the Koran are true?
Man…when Shiva destroys this universe, you are going to be in such deep doodoo.
I’m curious, are you able to actually breathe unassisted? Your brain doesn’t seem capable of autonomous activity while also having you spew this bile.
“I’m curious, are you able to actually breathe unassisted? Your brain
doesn’t seem capable of autonomous activity while also having you spew
this bile.”
Why don’t you answer that first about yourself, then we’ll move on from there.
I wasn’t aware I was in kindergarten again, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Pfft. As I’m not the one trying to make a section of humanity appear sub human, I doubt I’m the one with any problem.
I wasn’t aware you were in kindergarten either until you said this:
“I’m curious, are you able to actually breathe unassisted? Your brain
doesn’t seem capable of autonomous activity while also having you spew
this bile.”
Now we know I guess.
Is that all you do, parrot what other people say?
When I’m talking to a kindergartner, yes. How about you?
You’re boring.
So, love between two people of the same sex is worse than slavery, because your 2,000+ year old book says so.
Sin, the ultimate victimless crime.
“So, love between two people of the same sex is worse than slavery, because your 2,000+ year old book says so”
Yes.
“Sin, the ultimate victimless crime.”
No.
Any other foolish comments?
How does God respond to sodomy Matthew? Do you have any proof that a God responds to anything? Have you asked any black people if they feel sodomy is worse than slavery? Have you ever been a slave that is owned by another human being? I think you’re pretending to know things you don’t know.
who’s Matthew?
Would you like to read your Bible a bit more?
Ezekiel 16:49 – Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Pick your Bible version if you don’t like NIV (above), but come on, at least know what your Bible is saying if you want to drop the mic on this issue. The Bible itself says the sin of Sodom was essentially inhospitality, of basically becoming a cross of the Kardashians and the cast of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.
Yes, getting the men of the town together to gang-rape male travelers is quite inhospitable, isn’t it.
Try again. That’s not what the verse said. You guys are big on verses in the Bible, especially the OT, even though you pay lip service to how the NT replaces it. (my hospitality thing was my own interpretation, so apologies on muddling that part up) But if you want to go that route, you mentioned rape, so not sure how consensual sex fits into all this. So, once again, try again.
Certainly that is not what that verse said.
Have you not read the account of Lot’s time in Sodom?
Further: do you fully understand the concept of hospitality as understood in the ancient world?
You are a disgrace to the Christian faith and to humanity overall. You sicken me. You’re part of the reason non-Christians think our faith is a disease and that the Bible is evil at it’s core. God mentions homosexuality, what, maybe twice directly in the entire Bible. But he talks about men-stealers, idolaters, and FORNICATORS so much more often. And I have news for you, heterosexuals make up far more instances of fornication, affairs, child molestation, and divorce, all things God has EXPLICITLY said he hates. You mention Sodom and Gamorrah. Many ill-informed like you claim it was destroyed because… Read more »
Just to be clear: it is preferable to own other human beings as property, beat them to within an inch of their lives as frequently as possible, rape them, and pass them down to one’s heirs than it is for two consenting adults to enter into a legally binding relationship with each other.
“Slavery: Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property.”
The rest of what you describe is not the definition of slavery.
The rest of what I described is what the Bible says is acceptable. You would have recognized it if you had read the Bible.
Thomas Sowell weighs in on this issue. http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/07/07/a-legacy-of-cliches-n2021930
Thanks for contributing to the spread of atheism.
If by “spreading atheism” you mean “revealing half-hearted so-called ‘Christians’ as the unbelievers they are,” then … you’re welcome.
HOLD ON !! Douglas Wilson just opened up the Old Testament Book of Whupass to support his opinions. Therefore ALL the Old Testament Patriarchal Perversions and disgusting misogynistic sins attached to “Traditional Marriage” may now be assumed to be valid in Christian Churches in the United States. The Old Testament Bible allows the sacramental ‘traditional’ marriage to include rape, adultery, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, sexual slavery, serial marriage, keeping of concubines, blood sacrifice, slut shaming and stoning women to death, … gynecological torture,… {all for the benefit of men only},… (Hey, I am a whiter Christian Patriarch than Doug will ever… Read more »
Spam?
Are you trying to make some sort of point here?
I loved Eddie Vedder’s live version back about 20+ years ago.
Wow, what is it with you, anal sex, and slavery?
If all sins are equal in the All-Seeing Eye of The Lord, isn’t eating shellfish just as bad as sodomy? It is forbidden to do so in the Old Testament of the Good Book. Judge not lest ye be judged. Also, mindeth thine own wax of bees. (Yes that last bit was a joke, but still what is called a “truism.”)