<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
And God-worshipers like me, Doug? What do we fear when we criticize you and your leaders?<br><br>By the way, I'm not qualified to determine what level of either reverence or disdain anyone has for God, and neither are you. <br><br>keely<br><br><br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br><br><br>> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:21:58 -0700<br>> From: ophite@gmail.com<br>> To: heirdoug@netscape.net<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Fest Protest.<br>> <br>> > That just about sums up what God haters like Andreas and Nick really<br>> > fear.<br>> ><br>> > It's the freedom.<br>> <br>> Doug --<br>> <br>> Actually, spent some time ruminating today, and produced exactly that<br>> answer. In your theology, one of the things I find objectionable (and<br>> I find many things about it objectionable), is, in fact, the freedom.<br>> Or, at the very least, it is the juxtaposition of absolute liberty<br>> with absolute privation.<br>> <br>> The thing that strikes me most, when reading Wilson in particular, is<br>> that he does not particularly fit the model of a theocrat; that is, he<br>> is not grim, humorless, and dour (or, at least, he is not generally<br>> so; I'll discuss that later). He's a quick read, and once you've<br>> mastered the somewhat specialized vocabulary he uses, and not an<br>> unpleasant. He actively promotes drinking, humor, the arts -- things<br>> which other Christians, especially other *Calvinists*, explicitly<br>> reject. You also won't find pious, whitebread "Christianized" versions<br>> of secular entertainments: last year, I was treated to a passable<br>> cover of "Sweet Home Alabama" sung by the man himself.<br>> <br>> He is not an ascetic, and explicitly denounces asceticism (of any<br>> sort) as being "Gnostic." You will find no flagellants in his<br>> congregation, and no teetotalers. I spent some time wandering around<br>> Trinity Fest this year. It looked fun, especially when one compares it<br>> to Gary North's economic apocalypse seminars or Joe Morecraft's fusty,<br>> legalistic lecturing (you will find nothing more interesting on his<br>> church calendar than a "World History Class," and sermons on "History<br>> of the Reformation").<br>> <br>> You may want to stop reading here, as it is the last positive thing I<br>> will be saying about DW for some time.<br>> <br>> Those freedoms are reserved only for the elect, and then only from the<br>> upper classes of the elect. Some pretense is made at there being<br>> reciprocal responsibilities between a man and his wife; a master and<br>> his slave; a pastor and his church. Those responsibilities boil down,<br>> effectively, to these two tenets: do not make their burden of your<br>> lessers harder than it must be; keep them firmly in their place. Women<br>> are responsible for cleaning, obedience, sex on demand; men, as their<br>> reciprocal responsibility, must give orders and compliments. A slave<br>> must work as hard as he can for his master; his master must merely<br>> refrain from whipping him.<br>> <br>> There are differences in opinion over egalitarianism, both here and<br>> elsewhere. My position is clear: I am an egalitarian, sexual and<br>> otherwise. I don't mean to start that argument here. However, even by<br>> the standard that people of different station should have different<br>> rights and responsibilities, his failure to promote standards that are<br>> even remotely reciprocal is truly remarkable. In ethical anarchy<br>> Wilson proposes for those whose ordination is to lead, those who are<br>> subject have absolute duties to other mortals, and those that are<br>> ordained to be leaders are answerable only to God, who is expected,<br>> one suspects, to manage the affairs of the Church by directly smiting<br>> those leaders who stray.<br>> <br>> I'm reminded of something Chris Witmer posted some time ago:<br>> <br>> "If it was me, I probably wouldn't give them the time of day. If you<br>> ask me (sorry, I know nobody asked me), it sounds like someone has<br>> trouble distinguishing between presbyterianism (where the congregation<br>> chooses their elders and then submits to them) and modern American<br>> baptistic congregationalism (where the leaders have to keep on<br>> answering to the electorate)."<br>> <br>> To me, some of the charges coming from the Reformed side of Doug's<br>> critics -- hyperconservatives even amongst evangelical Christians --<br>> sound esoteric. Sacerdotalism. Papism. Pastoral tyranny. Covering over<br>> the criminal mistakes of other pastors (like R.C. Sproul's tax fraud.)<br>> I haven't mentioned them because I'm only distantly interested in<br>> issues of church governance. But they are merely the flip side of my<br>> objections to his theology, from the liberal side: he believes that<br>> the powerful -- men, slaveholders, whites -- are utterly<br>> unaccountable, that they are ordained to be unaccountable, and that<br>> the Enlightenment (and Civil War) somehow forced Satanic<br>> accountability into places, like the marital home, the government, and<br>> the Church, where it should never have gone.<br>> <br>> Well, Doug, we in the West had 1200 years of misery, death, ignorance<br>> and tyranny under unaccountable leaders, unaccountable husbands, and<br>> unaccountable white men with beards. We're sick of it now, thanks.<br>> <br>> -- ACS<br>> <br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>> http://www.fsr.net <br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br><br /><hr />Messenger Café — open for fun 24/7. Hot games, cool activities served daily. <a href='http://cafemessenger.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_AugWLtagline' target='_new'>Visit now.</a></body>
</html>