Having read a good bit of both Wilsons in question, I wonder if they aren’t talking past each other. (In fact, I wonder if most of the criticisms of Jared’s post aren’t guilty of this…)
There’s a sharp difference between the ideas that Doug Wilson or John Mark Reynolds are advocating and the on-the-ground reality of contemporary evangelicalism.
I think Jared is criticizing the latter while most people seem to be responding as if he’s attacking the former.
8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry, and needs to recognize that heart change doesn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry.
And yet Jesus, with this transparently “non-political” agenda, managed to get Himself on the hit list of all the political authorities. How did He manage that? Was it all a big misunderstanding?
Ah, but yes, that is indeed a fine question. And one that if DW managed to explore further, I think points more to Jared being on the right track than Doug
I didn’t want to go through the rigmarole of registering so I could comment at the greater Wilson’s place, especially since only to do so would feel to me as becoming the “Someone’s wrong on the Internet” cartoon, but the most distressing thing about the responses to my post is the assumption that I have zero concern for the systematic murder of children (and that there is apparently no other route to stop it than politicking).
As I said in another post of mine from another site that I linked to from another comment in another of Justin’s posts on this site — everybody follow that? — I am a fan of both politicking for the repeal of Roe v. Wade and attacking with the gospel the sort of social and cultural decay that leads to both unwanted pregnancies and killed babies.
But this is the comment of Doug’s I’d most like to address: yet Jesus, with this transparently “non-political” agenda, managed to get Himself on the hit list of all the political authorities. How did He manage that? Was it all a big misunderstanding?
This is a nice slight of hand.
It disagrees in a way that implies I have no possible explanation for how Jesus ran afoul of the powers that be. Very clever.
Jesus ran afoul of the religious powers that be by “blaspheming” and the governmental powers that be by letting people treat him like Lord and King (which of course he was and is), which is insurrection language.
But do any of us think he wasn’t God or that he was actually plotting military overthrow or political shenanigans?
My entire point, for goodness’ sake, is that the Kingdom doesn’t look like the kingdoms of this world. And lo and behold, that is still scandalous in this world and in the Church.
Jake, I would agree that Jared Wilson is being “talked past” in many of the comments, but I think that is because of the tone and lack of clarification in his post.
I also see a fundamental issue in that he concedes some political involvement is OK (like voting against homosexual marriage and to overturn Roe vs. Wade) but he doesn’t like other unspecified political engagement.
If he’s using the Bible as the standard for overturning Roe v. Wade and voting against Homosexual Marriage, and he may even be lending his voice and donating to these causes from his comments later, why not do the same thing with other Biblical principles. It seems like he’s letting the evangelical culture he’s criticizing dictate his political involvement instead of using the Bible as the standard.
Just because some “Culture Warriors” are fools and distort the Bible doesn’t mean we quit trying to apply Biblical truth to every aspect of our lives, and that includes the realm of public policy.
I just think J. Wilson needs to clarify his standard for cultural engagement, his motives for caring about the political/moral involvement he’s chosen and the specific “cultural warriors” or practices he is so offended by.
I’m sympathetic to Jared’s position, but I’m not sure how consistent it is. Would this talk of “temporary treasures” apply to MLK or William Wilberforce?
What about gambling? Way too many Southern preachers avoid the Gospel by talking about gambling, but if that ain’t a social justice issue (I loathe that term), I don’t know what is.
October 21st, 2009 | 2:36 pm | #1
Having read a good bit of both Wilsons in question, I wonder if they aren’t talking past each other. (In fact, I wonder if most of the criticisms of Jared’s post aren’t guilty of this…)
There’s a sharp difference between the ideas that Doug Wilson or John Mark Reynolds are advocating and the on-the-ground reality of contemporary evangelicalism.
I think Jared is criticizing the latter while most people seem to be responding as if he’s attacking the former.
October 21st, 2009 | 2:50 pm | #2
8. It has no root in Jesus’ ministry, and needs to recognize that heart change doesn’t come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry.
And yet Jesus, with this transparently “non-political” agenda, managed to get Himself on the hit list of all the political authorities. How did He manage that? Was it all a big misunderstanding?
Ah, but yes, that is indeed a fine question. And one that if DW managed to explore further, I think points more to Jared being on the right track than Doug
October 21st, 2009 | 2:51 pm | #3
Jake, thank you.
I didn’t want to go through the rigmarole of registering so I could comment at the greater Wilson’s place, especially since only to do so would feel to me as becoming the “Someone’s wrong on the Internet” cartoon, but the most distressing thing about the responses to my post is the assumption that I have zero concern for the systematic murder of children (and that there is apparently no other route to stop it than politicking).
As I said in another post of mine from another site that I linked to from another comment in another of Justin’s posts on this site — everybody follow that? — I am a fan of both politicking for the repeal of Roe v. Wade and attacking with the gospel the sort of social and cultural decay that leads to both unwanted pregnancies and killed babies.
But this is the comment of Doug’s I’d most like to address:
yet Jesus, with this transparently “non-political” agenda, managed to get Himself on the hit list of all the political authorities. How did He manage that? Was it all a big misunderstanding?
This is a nice slight of hand.
It disagrees in a way that implies I have no possible explanation for how Jesus ran afoul of the powers that be. Very clever.
Jesus ran afoul of the religious powers that be by “blaspheming” and the governmental powers that be by letting people treat him like Lord and King (which of course he was and is), which is insurrection language.
But do any of us think he wasn’t God or that he was actually plotting military overthrow or political shenanigans?
My entire point, for goodness’ sake, is that the Kingdom doesn’t look like the kingdoms of this world. And lo and behold, that is still scandalous in this world and in the Church.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:01 pm | #4
Jake, I would agree that Jared Wilson is being “talked past” in many of the comments, but I think that is because of the tone and lack of clarification in his post.
I also see a fundamental issue in that he concedes some political involvement is OK (like voting against homosexual marriage and to overturn Roe vs. Wade) but he doesn’t like other unspecified political engagement.
If he’s using the Bible as the standard for overturning Roe v. Wade and voting against Homosexual Marriage, and he may even be lending his voice and donating to these causes from his comments later, why not do the same thing with other Biblical principles. It seems like he’s letting the evangelical culture he’s criticizing dictate his political involvement instead of using the Bible as the standard.
Just because some “Culture Warriors” are fools and distort the Bible doesn’t mean we quit trying to apply Biblical truth to every aspect of our lives, and that includes the realm of public policy.
I just think J. Wilson needs to clarify his standard for cultural engagement, his motives for caring about the political/moral involvement he’s chosen and the specific “cultural warriors” or practices he is so offended by.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #5
I’m sympathetic to Jared’s position, but I’m not sure how consistent it is. Would this talk of “temporary treasures” apply to MLK or William Wilberforce?
What about gambling? Way too many Southern preachers avoid the Gospel by talking about gambling, but if that ain’t a social justice issue (I loathe that term), I don’t know what is.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:09 pm | #6
[...] is an elaboration of a comment I left on Justin’s last post. Figured it could be brought up to the main [...]
October 21st, 2009 | 3:28 pm | #7
woo hoo – I got the comment out 1 minute before Jared!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact