[Vision2020] Doug Wilson Interview

[Chasuk]

This reply is intended to answer both keely's and Tom's question.

On 1/17/07, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> And this is . . . ?

> http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol4/femi4-6.htm

I assume that the above link is a response to this statement:

> His wife has contributed to this forum and doesn't seem
servile or abused.

I read the page linked, and I definitely have trouble with it.
However, I'm not a Christian.  The Bible isn't inspired writ to me.
The portions that I find wise, I take to heart.  The portions that I
find barbaric or out of step with my humanist perspective, I ignore.
If I were a Christian, I wouldn't cherrypick biblical verses, at least
insofar as I was consciously aware that I was doing so.  We all
ultimately believe that which most pleases us, but I do apply
integrity and intellectual cohesiveness to every aspect of my life (at
least, I try).

Nancy believes in the Bible.  She is not a cherrypicker.  She tries to
live that which she believes the Bible tells her.  Isn't that
generally considered a good thing?  I personally find the whole
concept of Christianity abhorrent, but I suffer the proselytizing
attempts of my Christan friends because they sincerely believe that
the Bible instructs them to proselytize.

I don't suffer poor behavior because religious belief mandates it;
Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. don't get any free passes from me just
because they are exercising their freedom of religion.  I'm not a
moral relativist (although it pains me to confess this).  However,
Nancy's belief concerning her submissiveness as a Christian wife
doesn't fall into the arena of human behaviors that motivates my
intervention.

Truthfully, I consider all of this beside the point.  I am not
suggesting that we embrace the beliefs of Doug Wilson, any more than I
am suggesting that we embrace the beliefs of a Shi'a imam, or that you
embrace my anti-theism.  I am suggesting that we all get along.
First, because Doug and his flock aren't going way.  Second, because,
while I disagree with Doug, and it would be great, from my
perspective, for ALL theists to convert to the Church of Chas, Doug
isn't Fred Phelps.  Heck, he isn't even Pat Robertson. He is a man who
isn't always polite (are any of us always polite?), with whom many of
of us disagree, who has alarmed and annoyed a lot of people, but who
has also done a lot of good for a lot of people.

Matthew 7:

"17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every
tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Of course, I can think of examples in which "corrupt trees" have
brought forth good fruit, but the general principal is still germane.
Has Doug brought forth more good fruit or bad?  If you asked members
of his congregation, the vocal minority aside, what do you think they
would say?  Nearly all of the "bad fruit" generated by Doug Wilson is
in the form of the incessant whining of his foes, rather than harm
generated by Doug Wilson himself.

If I were Jesus staring down from heaven, watching what my children
were doing in my absence, I wouldn't be happy at all at the infighting
that I witnessed.  Jesus didn't instruct us to "Engage in doctrinal
disputes in my name," as far as I recollect from my readings of the
Bible when I was a Christian.

I'll post more of the interview this weekend, hopefully after the
issues from this first excerpt have been resolved, even it it only
means that we agree to respectfully disagree.

Thank you, keely, Tom, Sue, and others who emailed me offlist, for your input.