[Vision2020] what next?

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

In his recent post, Donovan targets my assumption of the infallibility of 
the God's Word, and offers his alternative. But this simply highlights yet 
another example of an "inescapable concept." The best way to summarize this 
concept is with the phrase, "not whether, but which." It is not whether we 
will have a god over our society, but rather which god we will have. It is 
not whether this god speaks his law to us, but which law will be spoken to 
us. It is not whether we will have blasphemy codes, but rather which 
blasphemy codes we will have. The fact that we call our blasphemy codes by 
another name these days (hate speech) does not alter what is in fact occurring.

All law falls under the category of imposed morality. So which morality 
should it be? Kant's? Sharia? Christian? Bentham's? Why are we shocked when 
a Christian answers this question as a Christian? I don't expect Kantians 
to call for the imposition of Sharia. There is even less reason for dismay 
about the Christian response when we learn that Christians reject the 
"imposition" of Christian morality upon a society by force. Rather, it is 
to be done by persuasion as the Holy Spirit does His work in a society.

How does this relate to infallibility? Note that infallibility must be 
accorded to something, somewhere. In order to have any traction whatever in 
discussions like this, an unquestioned (and infallible) axiom is necessary 
at some point in the equation. Sometimes it is hidden deep, and other times 
it is right on the surface. But it is always there. Infallibility must be 
located somewhere.

And this is how it works in Donovan's post. He says that the Bible was 
written by men, and is interpreted by men, and men are fallible. But notice 
what then goes missing. Donovan does not go on to say that he too is a 
fallible man, and so all that he says about the Bible might be wrong. No, 
he pronounces confidently about the nature of being born again, and 
declares that God resides within each of our hearts. Now, is this true? How 
can we know? Mostly true? Which part? Men cannot live apart from a sure 
word, and they will always locate that sure word somewhere. And when they 
have done so, they have thus identified their god. As it turns out, 
Donovan's god is Donovan.

But now, back to a basic issue. I am not shocked and dismayed when a 
nonbeliever such as Donovan expresses his unbelief. But why are people 
shocked and dismayed when Christians express their faith? Isn't that what 
Christians are supposed to do? And surely it should be permissible for a 
Christian minister to hold to the infallibility of the Bible? But when he 
does, if he is then slanderously assailed as a racist, the reason is not 
that the secularists were getting a little bored and needed something to 
do. The reason for this is that they are protecting their altar, their 
sanctuary, their source of infallibility.

The word profane comes from pro (in front of, outside) and fanum (temple). 
That which is profane is outside the temple. But which temple? I am in hot 
water locally because I have profaned the secular temple. I am thinking 
outside their sacred box. But I am a Christian, and I cannot help this. I 
am outside their temple because I do not worship there.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson