In Defense of Doug Wilson’s Rhetoric Yet Again…

Let me take the time to offer some pushback to the pushback concerning my defense of Douglas Wilson‘s rhetoric. I want to lay out a series of brief apologies for why I think Doug’s approach is both culturally and theologically needed in our day.

There is, of course, a prima facie case for Wilson’s rhetoric which is that it is something the atheists pay attention to, and it is something the evangelical elites hate. Bill Maher is not afraid of Jemar Tisby’s Christianity. Even the late Christopher Hitchens once said about Doug that the dangerous thing about Wilson is that he actually believes this stuff. So, lesson one, we should speak as if we believe this stuff and the woke mobs should tremble before us, and Screwtape should gladly see his nieces and nephews pass over us. “Not that home, Wormwood: they imprecate like warriors!”

The great theologian Nacho Libre once pondered in his Pensees: “Don’t you want a little taste of the glory? See what it tastes like?” That’s a fair question, and I think that the argument should be turned around. Anti-satire rhetoricians want the glory of niceness to prevail. Now, that statement probably needs to be layered. Dr. Jill Biden once referred to me as a breakfast taco, so the metaphor is quite appropriate.

No, I am not saying that everyone who disagrees with Wilson hates metaphors or tacos or finds Lewis repulsive because he once scolded nice cultures, but I am saying that those who oppose serrated edges are in danger of leaving too wide of a gap for thieves to break through and steal. For instance, Democrats who walk in our congregation should feel repulsed at our psalms of imprecation, especially when I sing the words “the stupid can’t accept the truth” louder than other lines in Psalm 92. I want them to feel the sting of God’s no-neutral zone when it comes to truth. But, I am an equal opportunity offender, which means I also want Republicans to feel no ease at that line. Nevertheless, it’s the leftist tears that I am most eager to offend because they are just so offendable. So, I offer little nuance to the statement above.

As I read some of the responses to yesterday’s post, I realize that there are basic hermeneutical misunderstandings about how I write and the corpus of what I’ve written in these last few years that could have easily encouraged easy access to my paradigm. For instance, much of what I said has been developed in my Mark series at Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola,FL, and also can be found in my essay in the new book edited by P. Andrew Sandlin on the war of the priesthood, and a quick glance at the last 300 posts should also give you some insight into my little world. So, allow me to list some general responses and I hope for those who know me personally in the paradisiacal Pensacola, I offer to pay you three of the best tacos in town to talk further.

First, to satisfy everyone’s curiosity, I was drinking Barao de Vilar Maynard’s 40 Years Tawny Port. The experts say, “Bright, tilted fresh marmalade finish. Honey and caramel with overlaid figs and prunes.” You’re welcome!

Second, when I speak of the case for satire among the prophets, I am speaking about more than mere prophetic declarations that are unseemly to the modern ear. I am arguing for a particular hermeneutic that is covenantal from beginning to end. In other words, everything Paul says and every rhetorical piece of diatribe and nicety he offers is grounded in the prophetic writings. For anyone to abide clearly within covenantal categories, they must see a continuity of speech patterns from Jeremiah to John the Forerunner to Paul. Prophets, I argue, are covenantal dramatizers. Their histories are rooted in the redemptive ethos and they cannot be isolated as solitary figures speaking into the air purposelessly, but they actually set the stage for the drama of history in which we are all happily invested. Further, we need to keep in mind that Paul reserves his un-nicest words to false leaders and to those forsaking the faith. It’s not just that he curses them, it’s that he wishes their genitalia were cut off (ἀποκόψονται; Gal. 5:12, or even, “castrate yourself”). Where does this fall in this debate?

Third, our very Lord following the footsteps of John the Forerunner following in the footsteps of those gone before also offered vehement warnings and woes. Matthew 23 stands as a clear case, but the Gospels are also replete with these forms of imprecations. Jesus spared no vocabulary.

Fourth, there were some direct references to not just how Wilson speaks, “but what he says.” That’s a classic case of moving the conversation to a different planet. It reminds me of how not to parent. Good parenting stays on topic and doesn’t allow children to distract you from the main point of discipline. So, back to the basic framework: Is satire acceptable in public discourse, especially when it comes to secularism? Yes, and amen! The evidence is abundant. Once that proposition is established, we can debate what is being said. Every dominion satirist is going to start his stand-up differently. There isn’t a once size fits all standard textbook.

Fifth, “but Douglas Wilson is not Elijah.” Correct.

Sixth, back to number five, we need more men in the spirit of Elijah.

Seventh, the fair argument about differentiation in the audience was brought to my attention. Yes, I have attempted to address this in my sermon series on Mark. Jesus reserves harsh words for religious leaders and he offers plenty of Ephesians 4:32 to his fellow servants, disciples, and those whom he heals, exorcises, and makes whole. When Greg Johnson argues for celibate gay clergy, we don’t need to gay statements. We need militant statements. Remember that these are not naive Christians. They are the blind guiding the blind. We need more O. Palmer Robertsons standing on the floor of the Assembly and reading Romans 1 in its entirety. As Sproul would say, “What’s wrong with you, people!”

Eighth, there was a genuine concern that Wilson is focusing solely on results to justify his rhetoric. That may be true as a side of fries, but it’s not the main meal. I think as you age, and Wilson is a man nearing 70, you get to meditate on toil and sorrow (Psalm 90) with greater integrity because you have fought well. There is nothing wrong to look at the fruits of your labors and say, “Yahweh has done great things.” I am opposed, however, to young bucks trying to play the number games to justify their rhetoric and to leave momma alone in the house all day. I scold these dudes and fart in their general direction.

When Pentecost took place, it was good and right that Peter gave us a number of baptisms. Peter was preaching from the prophets and he was seeing the Spirit-wrought effects among the masses. Moscow is doing great things. Moscow may not be a great nation, but they are a nation of doers (James 1:22) and the few that they have, have brought blessings to the thousands intellectually and formationally. And, we should thank–if you are on my side–Doug Wilson for setting forth a labor of love and satire among that community for so long.

Ninth, someone observed that the postmillennial ethos smells differently than the mail or premil ethos. I think there is something to that. If we–as postmil–take the fact that the world belongs to us (Romans 4:13), then we believe the ascended Christ is pushing us from glory to glory, which means that we use the rhetoric of dominion from sea to shining sea. We argue against principalities and powers taking every thought captive (II Cor. 10:5) and pushing the VanTilian forces in every sphere, especially the public domain. Postmillennialists work rhetorically to ensure that the world is stamped with God’s copyrighted logo.

Tenth, there were some general concerns about my metaphors, particularly the one about hallmark cards, etc. Anyone who hears me preach and lecture regularly has heard me use such language. So, welcome to my world. My basic point is that for many, including the disciples, Jesus should fit into certain messianic expectations. He needed to fit into conquering modes that were familiar in the first-century environment. The disciples wanted to be at his right and left hands when Jesus crucified the Romans and caused havoc in Jerusalem. But my argument is that Jesus shatters modern expectations, yes, even sentimental ones, as he enters Jerusalem. He comes riding as a conquering King (the greater Jehu), but a conquering King who comes to give his body for the salvation of the cosmos. The right and left hands the disciples want are on the left and right of Jesus at Calvary. That hallmark card image was shattered when the palm branches were laid.

Now, one may not like the way I write or the metaphors I use or my Brazilian accent and illustrations poured forth sweet like a samba, but it’s who I am. So, get that corn outta my face.

Eleventh, since I skipped one (see the exchange between five and six), I wanted to add that Wilson is a controversial figure and that folks will have preconceptions of his labors before considering his rhetoric, which will incidentally impact how they view his rhetoric. But I stand as someone who has benefitted tremendously from his work and who stands by his body of work as the fruits of godliness and insight in a civilization of utter stupidity.

Brethren, this is not a time for sophisticated footnotes. Love like the prophets. Love like our Lord. Stay close to your local body, and put on the whole armor of God. Sharpen your swords and follow in the train of our Lord who goes forth to war. 

A Father’s Day Exhortation

Happy Father’s Day!

There is a hunger out there. It is not a hunger for food, money, power; it is a hunger for fathers. This is what Douglas Wilson referred to as “Father Hunger.” Sons and daughters are craving for them. And they do not come neatly packaged. They usually come with imperfections and without an instruction manual.

But this is all right. They usually have a pretty good sense of what is right and wrong, and when they make mistakes they don’t justify themselves, but they seek forgiveness.

Where are these fathers today? They are nowhere to be found. We can find their shell in their homes, but we can’t detect their fatherly souls. This is tragic. And we do want to emphasize the important roles that fathers play in the home. But in order to do so, they must be present.

So to fathers who are present, what we want to do is to encourage you to be servants in the home, lovers of truth, carriers of joy, and examples of repentance and faith. Our children will mirror our worst traits, and this is frightening indeed. But God has not left us hopeless. He has provided Himself as an example of true fatherhood. Even those without a father today know that you have a heavenly father; One who does not leave the orphan or widow, but who cares and proves his perfect fatherhood each day.

Fathers, I urge you to take dominion over your role. You only have one shot at it, but remember that no circumstance is too late or too far gone. Every prodigal is within reach. Every prodigal still would prefer dad’s table to the table of doom. Be encouraged and hopeful.

Fathers, you are what you worship, and your children will worship joyfully the God you worship most joyfully. So worship most joyfully the God of your Father Abraham. Do not idolize your children, but teach them to crush idols. Do not serve mammon, but teach them to use mammon wisely.

This is the charge to fathers in this congregation. It is a noble and mighty charge: to love your children and to conquer their hearts, before others conquer them. Learn early and often that you are a servant of your heavenly father. If you do not serve him alone, you will be another absent father in our culture. May it never be! May God grant you strength and wisdom as you lead your families, and may He lead you to your knees, beautify your words with truth and grace, strengthen your faith with biblical conviction, and renew you daily. Amen.

Prayer: O God, our Father, we have at times failed you. We have viewed ourselves as too mighty. We have repented too little, and suffered for it. May we be fathers that delight in You, our great Father. Do not leave us to our own resources, but be our present help in times of trouble. May our hearts be aligned with yours, even as your heart is aligned with your Son, Jesus Christ, in whose Name we pray. Amen.

Marriage as Gospel Picture

Marriage is instituted by the Triune God, and when rightly understood it is one of the most glorious pictures of the gospel ever given to man. And of course, when it is abused (as it often is), it presents a potent false gospel as well. That false gospel either seduces people into a sentimental mess, attracting them on false grounds and with false promises, or it presents an unwelcome caricature that causes people to be repelled. But as Christians who want structure all of our lives on the bedrock of the Scriptures, we should certainly do the same with marriage, and we will quickly discover that this way of living presents the world with a stark alternative.

{Douglas Wilson, For A Glory and a Covering, Introduction}

How Evangelical Leaders Have Changed Since 9/11?

Doug Wilson writes in response to CT question:

Of course, a stupefying event like 9/11 should never be reduced to a matter of personal growth or understanding. At the same time, to be unchanged by such an event, or not to notice such changes, is to be ranked in the top tier of those who are not really paying attention.

The American public square is teeming with people, and therefore opinions, and 9/11 brought many of those opinions about public aspects of faith into sharp conflict with one another. Two of these opinions have stood out in the past decade: radical Islam and Western secularism. The radical Islamist option is a hard, sectarian line, but the postmodern-affected secularists appear to be about as firm and steady as Belshazzar’s knees. We need an alternative.

But what—besides residual motor memories from a distant and vanishing era—can provide us with a foundation for a continuing free society? Christian forms of a reactionary and tight sectarianism seem both doctrinally wrong-headed and impractical.

As a consequence, a line of thought since 9/11 has brought me, by degrees, to champion something called mere Christendom. This is, I am convinced, the only genuine alternative to secular American exceptionalism on the one hand, and radical Islam on the other.

Lenten Quote, Day 37

The cross is not a contradiction of God’s Lordship, but its most dramatic expression and revelation. He is the Lord even in the place that is most opposed to Him, and He exercises this Lordship for us. –Douglas Wilson

On Jesus’ Victory

Doug Wilson writes:

Not only did Jesus conduct the victory parade before the victory, but His victory, when He came to it, was accomplished by dying, and not by killing. He crushed the serpent’s head by allowing Himself to be bruised by a crushing blow (Is. 53:5).

Wilson on Lent without Easter

Doug Wilson again touches on a crucial element of our weekly gathering:

In Leviticus 23, the weekly sabbath is listed along with the rest of Israel’s festivals as a feast, as a festival. The weekly sabbath was a day of rejoicing, not a day of gloom. The Jews had only one penitential day out of the year — their Good Friday, Yom Kippur, the day of atonement.

But for some, that is not nearly enough gloom. There is something in the religious heart that wants to locate affliction and trouble where the God of all grace has located none. When we say that we are sabbatarians, the mind and heart leap immediately to what we have to give up. It has been easy for us to see Lenten excesses in what other communions say and do, but the conservative Reformed view of the sabbath is often Lent without any Easter to mitigate the sorrow.

The joy of the Lord is our strength. We have been laboring for many years to turn around this common error concerning the Lord’s Day. More is involved in this than might initially appear, and so we give ourselves to it.

What must you give up in order to come to this Table? What must you leave behind? Only your sorrow. Only your guilt. Only your gloom. Come, and welcome, to Jesus Christ.