<div id="bg">
<div id="frame">
<div id="main">
<br><form action="http://www.google.com/cse" class="search">
<div>
<input name="q" class="keywords" type="search">
</div>
</form>
<div id="content">
<br>
<h1>
Douglas Wilson & The Dangers of Effeminate Worship
</h1>
<p>
Douglas Wilson, who might be best known for his criticism of the “New
Atheists”, specifically his debates with Christopher Hitchens, recently
posted <a href="http://www.dougwils.com/Liturgical-Notes/your-worship-service-might-be-effeminate-if.html">a list of eleven warning signs that your church’s worship service might be getting too effeminate</a>. For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
1. Your music and sermons almost never contain references to judgment, wrath, battles, enemies, Hell, the devil, or apostasy;</p>
<p>
2. Your music minister is more concerned that the choir trills their
r's correctly than that they fill the sanctuary with loud sounds of
battle;</p>
<p>
3. One of the ministerial staff has taken to wearing a clerical collar
and a powder pink shirt, and no one on the session has the courage to
tell him that he looks like a thirteen-year-old boy with rosy cheeks, as
painted by Norman Rockwell;</p>
<p>
4. The worship team gravitates toward "Jesus is my girlfriend" songs,
and their facial expressions while up front are those of guys in the
backseats of their cars, having just gotten to second base with their
actual girlfriends;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
Wilson is no stranger to controversy — among his many works is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-As-It-Was/dp/188576717X">a book that suggests that slavery in the South was, shall we say, misunderstood</a> — and this article caused quite a stir. My Christ and Pop Culture colleague, Brad Williams, posted a response titled <a href="http://www.christandpopculture.com/asides/sacred-space-doug-wilson-the-church-is-a-bride-bro/">“Doug Wilson, the Church Is a Bride, Bro”</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">"First, let me point out that the church’s worship cannot be
effeminate. Nor should it be masculine. Nor should it be feminine. The
worship service should be designed to allow men and women to worship the
Almighty as, well, men and women. What the gathering of the church does
is allow men and women to express their adoration of God for His
offering of His Son Jesus as a propitiation for our sins. So the pastor,
the music leaders, the responsive reading guy, the prayers—these things
are all done to remind us of the glorious truths of the Bible, and
people are free to respond to that however they might best express
themselves. That could include dancing half-naked in front of the ark of
God, or it could include a man getting his ugly cry on because of the
glory of God has broken his heart. Or, he could stand at parade rest and
sing lustily and make battle noises, I guess. Either way, you ought to
leave that dude alone, brother.</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">
So technically, the worship of the church cannot be effeminate. Only
individual men can be effeminate. But what that exactly means is a bit
of a mystery to me. To avoid that, does it mean he has to grow a beard?
Quit wearing preppy cardigans? No gold bracelets? Wilson tries to help
us spot effeminate worship, but things like this only leave me more
confused"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
The Internet Monk’s Chaplain Mike posted an even more pointed response, titled <a href="http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/esau-christianity">“‘Esau’ Christianity? Douglas Wilson Needs a Bible Study”</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
<span style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">"This is one of the more misguided and mean-spirited pieces I’ve read
in awhile. This whole idea of “masculine Christianity” that some among
the neo-Reformed and others are promoting these days is so off-base I
can’t believe anyone falls for it. Most of our concepts of “masculinity”
and “femininity” are time-bound social and cultural constructs and have
nothing to do with being “biblical” (there is that terribly misused
word again) or representing a vital and rigorous faith.</span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">
Its purveyors may be as clueless as Esau was.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">
[…]</p>
<p style="color:rgb(51,51,255)">
What is clear is that Wilson exudes a deep distrust and contempt for
women in this post. What he says sounds nothing like the way Jesus or
Paul related to their sisters and partners in the Gospel. For instance,
he throws out the old canard about women conspiring to form a “shadow
government” behind the scenes in order to function as illicit leaders in
the congregation. Believe me, after serving as a pastor for more than
25 years, I’ve had as much trouble with masculine guys as with scheming
women. But Wilson would have us believe that, if only the church’s male
members would “man up” and take control over the vexatious vixens among
us, we would see the church functioning as it should. You might want to
ask the leadership at Mars Hill or Sovereign Grace Ministries how that’s
working. Better yet, ask the women in those groups."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I first learned of Wilson through <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html">his interactions with Hitchens</a>,
which I enjoyed. And I have appreciated Wilson’s willingness to level
criticism at both “conservative” and “liberal” Christians. But there’s a
lot of chaff to sift through in his writings: for every good point he
makes, there are several that are, at best, groan-inducing and deserving
of little more than an eye-roll. (For example, </p>
<p>
With regards to this particular article of Wilson’s, there are those
who will no doubt defend it as being tongue-in-cheek. Here’s the thing,
though: If Wilson were to write a <strong>serious</strong> article
warning churches against being too effeminate, would it really be all
that different from the actual article that he did post?<br>
</p></div></div></div></div><br>