Jared Wilson has deleted his post, and offered an apology here (ht: Brian LePort). If you are unaware of what I am talking about, I have his now deleted post offered in full in my first post (of two) on this particular issue here. I then followed my first post with this second post here. Let me provide a little more context on what was fueling my ire on this.

My wife and I, as a recent post makes clear, have just recently watched The Stoning of Soraya M. It was this movie that illustrated for me what an unrestrained so called complementarian approach to gender issues can lead to. I normally would self identify as a complementarian (instead of an egalitarian), at the moment though, I am in a spot of suspension. I am not altogether happy with what I see in the egalitarian movement either (contra complementarianism) — it seems to be charged with all kinds of political over and undertones that make me shy away from wanting to be identified this way. But, I have come to see how complementarianism is also imbued with this same kind of political platform; so, I am suspended. I must be somewhere on these continuums of belief, but at the moment, I really don’t want to identify with either of them.

All of that said; it is a good move that Jared has made, he should have apologized for posting the blather that Douglas Wilson originally penned. There has been some kind of a defense (and critique) made of Douglas Wilson’s quote by a guy named Alastair here. But as far as I am concerned, Douglas Wilson’s language cannot be defended (it can just be retracted as Jared Wilson has rightly done now).

I offered a quick “critique” (not really a critique, but a reflection that could offer the lineaments towards a critique) in my second post on this issue. The reality is, is that Douglas Wilson’s quote exemplifies what happens when a theologian/pastor operates, methodologically from a ‘natural theology’ (what is=ought when applied to ethics). If I were to pursue this issue further with Douglas Wilson, this is the line that I would pursue. The quote from Douglas Wilson is explicitly framed in a way that uses “nature” in a way that it cannot be used apart from explicitly framing it in a Christ conditioned way. Meaning that we cannot simply read our ethics off of the pages of creation without understanding creation’s ‘purpose’ in Jesus Christ, and this is what I see Douglas Wilson trying to do — in the name of Christ, no less.

PS. I realize we are all imperfect, and err. But when someone’s theology (maybe my own too) causes them to write the kinds of things that Douglas Wilson has in the ‘way’ he has, then that kind of error needs to at least receive some push back, it is up to D. Wilson to do with that what he will. J. Wilson has done what he thinks is right by apologizing, and so should D. Wilson (which I haven’t seen him do yet). The reality, though, which I fully realize, is that we all have a web of beliefs that we hold to (in a noetic structure), and at the bottom of those beliefs there is a guiding touchstone belief that is shaping and conditioning the rest. My concern with D. Wilson’s statement runs deeper than even the jargon of the quote that J. Wilson quoted from D., it goes to his touchstone belief about God which flows from his Federal Vision theology. It is his commitment to this touchstone belief about God (that I think is grounded in an inadequate account of who God is as Triune) that allows him to take other postures down line which result in quotables like that that J. Wilson took from D. Wilson’s book.

Advertisements