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. 

The post In Defense of Doug Wilson’s Rhetoric Yet Again… appeared first on Resurrectio et Vita.