[Vision2020] Wilson's Excuses

[Andreas Schou]

On 2/19/07, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> Andreas,
>   I'll grant you that killing "gay men, disobedient children, heretics,
> witches, et cetera" is mentioned in the Bible and that Mr. Wilson has made a
> great point of not backing away from or apologizing for what is contained
> there. How does this equate with promoting a theocratic system of government
> sponsored murder? You and an increasing number of like minded souls on this
> forum continue to make these statements as though they were self evident.
> Why is it so difficult to provide so much as a tiny shred of documentation?

This is a quote from Doug Wilson's blog. It's not the only one.

"The next two hundred years, whatever happens in them, will be
governed by a certain intellectual sensibility. The apostle Paul used
to call them principalities, but nowadays we wrestle not against flesh
and blood, but rather against sensibilities and powers. This
intellectual sensibility will allow some things and prohibit others,
and it will do so in accordance with a certain standard.

If fundamentalist Muslims were to overrun the world, that would
constitute an idolatrous postmodern era. The word that governed all
discourse would be the word of their Allah; Sharia law would be the
standard. It wouldn't be right, but it would be genuinely postmodern.
But if we react away from this (against every form of
"fundamentalism"), and say that we want the "free interchange of all
ideas," "principled pluralism," "the give and take of neutral,
secular, civilized discourse," and whatnot, we are returning to the
very font of all modernity -- a frightened postmodern child running
back to his modernity mama.

Postmodernism as a buzz word began as an architectural movement, and
it was just another fad in a long series of fads. But the same thing
is true of every other application of the word. Modernity is going
through a crisis of faith in its own larger system of dogmatics, that
is true enough. But we still keep churning out the goods -- medicine,
travel, clothing, electronics -- and modernity (for all its loss of
faith) still tenaciously defends the goose that keeps laying these
eggs. And on this subject, postmodernists join ranks with the
modernists, shoulder to shoulder. Postmodernists (falsely so-called)
make different choices about what they buy and sell, but all this is
just milling about in different aisles of the same superstore.

Christians who are "emergent" complain (like lots of people do) about
the global market forces that are busy distributing their market havoc
and wealth, but iPod sales have mysteriously remained steady among
them. And all you have to do to reveiw the latent modernist in
virtually everyone is suggest that the Lordship of Christ needs to be
publicly recognized over all market transactions. Note -- not that I
personally should remember the Lordship of Christ as I head out to buy
my personal iPod.

No. Who is Lord of all things? Who should be recognized as Lord in the
public square? The one who actually is Lord, or some other god?
Suppose someone advances the idea that the Lordship of Christ must be
publicly recognized as the final authority over the market, over the
legislature, over all our public life."

After this, Doug discusses that it must not be through revolution --
Doug is opposed to revolutions -- but rather through subversion of
liberal democracy. While I appreciate that he is not a revolutionary
(which would be a stupid way of achieving his goals regardless), I do
not appreciate my liberal democracy, a thing which I very much
appreciate, being subverted.

You might also want to find out who Rousas Rushdoony is.

-- ACS