[Vision2020] Wilson on the Execution of Homosexuals

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greetings:

So, Doug Wilson has had so many "fish to fry" that he is just now publicly announcing, 3 1/2 years later, that a quotation on the death penalty for homosexuals as reported in the December 11, 2003 edition of the "Daily News" was a "gross distortion" his views.

He claims that the focus of that debate was on slavery, so that he didn't have time to correct this distortion.  But if you read Wilson's columns (he was alloted three to the opposition's two) and the ads by Christ Church, you will find that Wilson states very clearly that the issue was homosexual marriage and liberal intolerance.  What a perfect opportunity for Wilson to correct the distorted quotation.

Can any reasonable person believe that Wilson has not had time in the intervening 3 1/2 years  to correct this view?  Isn't more credible that his critics have correctly reported and repeated this outrageous position so much that Wilson had to either take responsibility for his remarks or shift his position and salvage it somehow?  He tried this on slavery and now he's doing it with regard to homosexuality.

In his blog entry "Execution of Homosexuals" (August 30, 2005) Wilson begins by changing the topic.  In December, 2003, the topic was the Bible's view on slavery, which Wilson defended.  What followed naturally and logically was the Bible's position on homosexuality, and that is where Wilson defended execution or banishment. Wilson's position was that one should never apologize for the Word of God.

It is significant that no where in the August, 2005 blog entry does he say how his December, 2003 statement was a distortion.  All that he essentially does in his blog entry is to turn the question to something very different: "how homosexulaity should be addressed by the civil magistrate (if that magistrate were somehow to care about what Scripture teaches.)"  The other tactic Wilson takes is to attempt to become a good Christian (keep trying, Doug!), by saying correctly that Christ changes everything with regard to enforcing Old Testament law.  

Interestingly, this was not the position of Greg Dickison in his articles "Your Eye Should not Pity" and "Know Where to Draw the Line" (Credena Agenda, vol. 3, nos. 9, 11).  As far as I know, Wilson has not disputed this article, but mysteriously this entire volume has disappeared from the Credenda archives.  Dickison offers no flexibility or grace for the Christian magistrate, who, "when we have it our way," will enforce Old Testament law without exception, for to pity the sinner is itself a sin.

So when Wilson's Christianity hits the pagan and unreconstructed Christian beach chairs like a tsunami (it's right there in "My Town") and when only propertied Christian males will be voting (also in "My Town"), I am certain that Dickison will be appointed the first Christian magistrate and their eyes will not pity.

Yours for no Wilsonian Tsunamis,

Nick Gier