This is an elaboration of a comment I left on Justin’s last post. Figured it could be brought up to the main page.
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.
Doug counters at one point that nobody he knows thinks legislation can make anyone a Christian. I have affirmed in one of the myriad comment threads ensuing from my original (apparently) hornet stirring post that I know that if pressed almost no Christian would say it would. (Although I did have one guy say he was essentially argued into the kingdom.) But my concern here is not in what we say in the fine print of our evangelical theology, but what we say and do day to day in our evangelicalism. My argument is that we routinely betray our theology. Not just one hour ago — I’m not making this up — I was talking about the new American missional frontier of New England with someone who made the connection in their response to the liberal government and the fact that we are not a “Christian nation” any more.
This has been a common reaction in the comments: I am attacking a persona that doesn’t exist. I must be that dude from “Beautiful Mind,” then, imagining literally hundreds of people throughout my life. It astounds me that many are acting like they have no idea what I’m talking about. We need to trade Facebook accounts for a while, I suppose, so you can see the daily deluge of trusting in chariots and horses evident in the status updates. Visit a Bible Belt community or even an evangelical pocket outside. Nobody would say laws make people Christian, but just the fact we’d have to ask them in order to clarify makes my point.
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.
Related posts:
October 21st, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #1
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 | 3:29 pm | #2
Should I refer to myself in the third person? :-)
Caleb, I have not responded to your repeated calls for further articulation of what I’m for yet mainly for lack of time to put together something substantive. I still lack that time at the moment, but I don’t want to keep leaving you hanging.
The medium-length answer is that I am an advocate of the antithesis of my ten points, which is to say, we have a wise expectation that it is the gospel that is the power to save, we emphasize the missional nature of the church over the current political nature of evangelicalism, we get our doctrine straightened out, we do not get surprised when sinners sin, we do not demonize our opponents, we do not talk and act as though a great nation is the end game, we acknowledge suffering and hardship and persecution as the biblical means of Christlikeness and don’t act as though safety and security are owed us, we shape our cultural engagement to look more like Jesus’, and we seek to redeem men more than we do to claim political power.
The short answer is akin to John Piper’s words on voting as if not voting.
All of the above looks different person to person, according to conscience and calling.
But our evangelical idols are killing us. We’ve been seeking them for decades now and we are not better off.
The biggest point of my post was that we ought to live in such a way that draws men to say “How wonderful Christ is!”. I have found myself too weak to manage that while engaged heavily in the political process — I’ve tried; I cannot go back to the man I was then — but if you can, blessings on you, brother.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:31 pm | #3
You sir, are correct.
It is the issue Doug (as far as I have been able to read, although I confess I visit his blog only occasionally) that he manages to overlook in all his arguments of this type
But as I wrote, I certainly have not read all of his work
October 21st, 2009 | 3:54 pm | #4
Jared,
Thank you for your clarification. I would agree with all of the points in your antithesis. I despise the way that most of evangelicalism pursues political ends and the results (power and fame) that many seek. I believe we need to tear down our evangelical idols. I have a big problem with our evangelical sub-culture and pray that it doesn’t win the culture war. I just wanted clarification because, though I believed you were not advocating this, your post could easily be construed as a call for the abandonment of cultural engagement.
It seems like your problem is with the way evangelicals are going about the “culture war.” If that is what your gripe is about, then I would agree wholeheartedly.
I just don’t think we have to separate the Gospel to some kind of gnostic, pietist spiritual realm (and I don’t think you do either). I believe the Gospel speaks to all of life in a transformational way. Consider Zechariah 3 & 4 in which the prophet sees visions of God transforming both the High Priest and the Ruler with his Word who then in turn transforms the nation.
Israel was supposed to be a city built on God’s Law that would in turn bless the sojourner and the surrounding nations. If we strive to transform our community, culture, world and even our country by applying Gospel truth in every area would that be a blessing to unbelievers or a curse?
I want you to understand that I see where your heart is and I’m not trying to attack you, I just think it’s and interesting discussion. The Gospel has to be at the forefront but I think it is powerful to transform lives, churches, communities and even the country.
Maybe it can even do something for American evangelicalism :)
October 21st, 2009 | 3:57 pm | #5
I just don’t think we have to separate the Gospel to some kind of gnostic, pietist spiritual realm (and I don’t think you do either)
No, I don’t either. Caleb, thank you for helping me clarify.
October 21st, 2009 | 3:59 pm | #6
[...] blogs about, either about the blog or the content. It has even started some little firestorms (Doug v. Jared, for example – btw, Jared is [...]
October 21st, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #7
This is fun, Jared. Seems to me like you guys are mostly “disagreeing as if not disagreeing”…
I know some of the people you’re talking about. They do exist, unfortunately. They would never articulate it, you’re right, but their actions make clear what they won’t say. My pastor actually had to preach a sermon that included a plead not to forward slanderous emails about Obama because it’s so prevalent among our members. I think a lot of people have blind spots about politics. Tim Keller actually has a chapter on this in his new book Counterfeit Gods that addresses the issue well (from the perspective of power as an idol).
Great stuff.
October 21st, 2009 | 5:26 pm | #8
As a player who agrees with 97% of what Jared said, and who is a fan of Doug’s blog and its author, and who doesn’t have to sort through the inconvenience of registering (again anyway), I think it’s interesting that Doug sees the matter of being primarily (or maybe exclusively) about whether babies are dying — and I suggest that Jared is on the same side of that issue as Doug is.
I think we have to ask ourselves if that’s the only place we are waging the culture war, and whether that’s what we’re known for. I think that’s self-ignorant if we see ourselves as primarily or exclusively seeking to save innocent lives — and certainly a little blind if we think others see us that way.
Think of it this way: if we think we are waging a war against some evil in some place where we are the aliens and the sojourners, but the people in that place see us as waging a war against them, and against their children, and against the people they love, I think the problem is that we have either waged the wrong war or at least sought out the wrong targets.
Yes: turning the whole world upside down is unquestionably what happens when we are really proclaiming the Gospel. When we have the real Gospel and we are really its ambassadors and its witnesses and its workmen, something really, historically happens. The question which I think Jared is asking, and which I have been known to ask from time to time, is whether we are serious about the Gospel when we act like the Law is out primary concern.
Case in point: Gay marriage. Who made marriage — the kind of marriage the non-traditionalists want anyway — the kind of thing Newsweek was asking for?
If we don’t say, “it was us, the church,” then we are kidding ourselves. let’s be honest: since divorce in the church looks like divorce in the world – that is, we do it just as often and for all the same reasons – I suspect we think of “marriage” in the same way the world does. So when the world simply wants to make the law look like what we are actually practicing, we have to look in the mirror and admit to ourselves that we are to blame for what the world thinks of marriage.
That’s the culture war, and the way we conduct it is very obvious: we don’t want anyone to do as we do — only do as we say. They guys who did that in Jesus’ day were called “white-washed tombs” by our Lord and Savior. So let judgment begin in the house of the Lord.
October 21st, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #9
Doug wills, but Jared wins.
October 21st, 2009 | 6:49 pm | #10
Jared – Thanks for the follow up post, couple questions I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on: While I think a lot of critics were talking past your original point, it seems there still is a disagreement of some sort on the question of Christian involvement in the public sphere, and perhaps specifically the political sphere. It’s not as sharp as people are making it out to be, but there still seems to be a difference.
My thought as I was reading is that maybe it’s an eschatological issue? I know Doug Wilson is post-millenial, which shapes the way he sees the church in the public sphere. Someone coming from an amillenial approach would obviously see the issue differently. But then again, I don’t know your view on the subject. (Or Dr. Reynolds’, for that matter.) What do you think? Is the disagreement basically over eschatology or something else?
October 21st, 2009 | 7:09 pm | #11
Jake, I couldn’t say. I am indeed amil, but I don’t make a direct connection between that my views on cultural engagement.
But I do think eschatologically about the subject: gospel of the kingdom, Great Commission submission through Great Commandment obedience, missional ecclesiology (which should be redundant) as the blueprint for Christ’s building of his church, etc.
Some have actually assumed I am postmil because I do see the work of the Body of Christ as participation in God’s kingdom coming and his will being done on earth as it is in heaven, moving toward the consummation of all things, the fulfillment of Habakkuk 2:14.
So I do see the permanence of pro-life ministry and other social justice aims; I just see most of the means of my brothers and sisters both gospel-deficient and their aims temporary (the outlawing of gay marriage, for instance, rather than grace for homosexuals).
What I see just about every day is an evangelicalism that is working like a dog to ensure everyone just behaves and leaves the stuff they care about alone.
But the message of the gospel is not “Behave!”
An illustration related from Michael Horton (under fire as of late :-):
October 21st, 2009 | 7:18 pm | #12
the outlawing of gay marriage, for instance, rather than grace for homosexuals
Preemptive strike. :-)
Before someone jumps on what they think this means, let me reiterate what I said in my original post, which is that I would vote against gay marriage and am theologically and philosophically against it.
But my zeal about the issue is not turned to 11. I sort of think once we ceded the stewardship of the covenant of marriage to the contractual business of the state, we welcomed godless stewardship.
I am much more zealous about reforming the state of marriage inside the Body of Christ.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #13
Horton writes:
Just like the Garden of Eden before the Fall.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:26 pm | #14
Hi, Jared. Hi, everybody.
I agree with Jared that politics is no savior. I believe that this is not an insignificant agreement. But where I differ is that I believe politics desperately needs a savior, and of course the only Savior is Jesus. The deployment of this solution is gospel preaching and faithful worship. We don’t try to get this result through political manipulations, but we still have an eye on the cultural results (not the cultural means). Hope this is helpful.
October 21st, 2009 | 11:17 pm | #15
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by jaredcwilson, mattredmond. mattredmond said: RT @jaredcwilson: My response to Doug Wilson. http://bit.ly/iLHgV Further elaboration in the comments, too.//excellent. [...]
October 21st, 2009 | 11:37 pm | #16
Amen, Doug!
One of the problems we face today is that our understanding of politics has been shaped largely by two philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Although Locke was much closer than Hobbes in offering a Christian understanding of rights, his views were deficient in significant ways. First, Locke’s epistemology–shaped by Descartes’ starting point of skepticism–denied that the intellect had the power to know natures or essences. Thus, this led to metaphysical nominalism. Second, Locke, like most modern philosophers, did not believe that political institutions were natural, in the sense that Aristotle and his medieval progeny believed. For Aristotle, statecraft was soulcraft, that the government and its laws in fact played a role in shaping the character of its people whether it intended to do so or note. As one would suspect, this is why Christians, like Thomas Aquinas, were drawn to Aristotle. He seemed to offer a conceptual framework congenial to the Christian understanding of the human person.
In any event, I say all this because it seems to me that much of the understanding of politics in this discussion assumes a modernist view of politics, one informed by Hobbes and Locke. No doubt our culture still has a little Aristotle in it, as is evident by what Toqueville told us was more prevalent in the 19th century. But the idea that politics is a necessary evil, a kind of unnatural add-on to make sure we don’t kill each other, is thoroughly modernist, and I believe inconsistent with the Christian understanding of man as a being with intrinsic ends or purposes that can only come fruition when certain institutions are in place, such as the family, the church, and a government to protect them. Of course, the state cannot provide the beatific vision or insure that its citizens exercise the theological virtues, which come only by God’s grace. But, it can make it more difficult for one to drift away from those virtues. For example, I am sure there are many men (and some women) who remember the day when access to pornography was difficult and expensive. Now, it is as accessible as ESPN or the Food Network (i.e., porn for obese people). On the other hand, in a regime in which access to vice is more difficult, virtue has a greater chance to grow deep roots and become more sturdy and dependable. This is not to say that law can “make men moral.” It can’t. But it can provide some support for institutions and ways of life that make vice more difficult and thus virtue easier to practice.
October 22nd, 2009 | 7:25 am | #17
I was going to respond here, but instead I’ll respond on the front page. Will link it here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact