My Life for Yours, or Your Life for Mine

With the recent revelations and growing scandal vis-à-vis Planned Barrenhood, Doug Wilson continues to write to keep the troops moving apace. Here's a snippet from his latest foray:

God created the world, and He configured it in such a way that there are only two possible ways for persons to interact. They may follow the example of the Lord Jesus, and say “my life for yours,” or they may walk in the way of Cain, who slew his brother, saying “your life for mine.” Those are the only possible options, and for sinners the former way is closed to us and impossible unless the free grace of God intervenes. But when it intervenes, we are then able honestly (albeit imperfectly) to say “my life for yours."

And a little further on:

Everyone in authority — like kings, or parents — has been placed in a position where they will use their authority in line with their fundamental creed. And remember, that creed is either grounded in the gospel, and is “my life for yours,” or it is grounded in self, and must therefore necessarily be “your life for mine.”

Reading Wright and Recommending Reading Wright

A good word from Doug Wilson on reading N. T. Wright:

Because of the way Wright articulates certain biblical truths — truths that some of his conservative critics would much rather avoid — reading him can be valuable. I would recommend that any pastors who can read him discerningly do so. But I don’t think it is a good idea to promote his books in our congregations because the clean up costs just aren’t worth it.

I agree. Now I read Wright fairly regularly, because there's good stuff there. But I agree with Wilson that not everyone can wade through it well and separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who appreciate Wright rightly ought to know to whom to recommend his books and to whom not.

N. T. Wright All for Dialogue: Until You Think He's Wrong

Criticizing N. T. Wright's public comments in this post (whether the critique is valid or not) was bound to get a reaction from those for whom one must never do such a thing. And we thought Wright himself was all for dialogue. No? Isn't he up for hearing from people all over the spectrum on all sorts of issues? No? Or is this only the case when someone is kissing the right part of his hind parts?

With all due respect to N. T. Wright (and I do respect him and read and learn from him often), if you wish to see him being a bit of a baby (and condescending) and pulling his oft-repeated "I-don't-recognize-myself" shenanigans, check out his comment in the comments section of this post by Pastor Wilson.

Wilson and Wright are both good men, faithful Christians, and their teachings are worth studying diligently. Wherever one falls on the theological, political, and cultural spectrum on the full range of issues, surely we can agree that these two men disagreeing isn't cause for grave concern. We ought to hang in there with them, that is, if Wright is even willing himself to do so. But it appears he's not willing to dialogue with people who disagree with him quite so sharply.

Update: Wilson's follow-up post responding to Wright's comment in the comments section.

Jesus Hates the Fed

Doug Wilson posts on legalized governmental theft:

Christian preachers need to just cut to the chase. Obamacare is not just theft, and not just grand larceny, it is mega larceny. Life is simple. Taking money from one group of people in order to give it to another group of people is larceny.

And further on:

I would have no problem condemning our modern banking and finance system, from the Fed on down, and I would have no problem issuing this condemnation from the pulpit in the name of Jesus. Why? Thou shalt not steal, as someone once said. 

"But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deut. 25:15-16). 

"Divers weights, and divers measures, Both of them are alike abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 20:10). 

"Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water" (Isa. 1:22).

This is why we can say that Jesus Christ hates the Fed. He hates it because it is an abomination to Him, and we can say this for the same reason that we can say He hates it when a butcher has his thumb on the scales. 

Pumping unbacked currency into the economy is the same sin in principle as having different sets of weights and measures. It is the same sin as mixing low-grade wheat into the silo, and pretending you didn't. It is the same sin as cutting the wine with water, and selling it as though you hadn't. 

It is the sin of putting copper into your quarters. That's not a little thing—the Bible calls it an abomination.

The whole post, which is quite good, may be found here.

Reformation and the Liberal Arts

Doug Wilson offers a helpful review of The Liberal Arts: A Student's Guide by Gene C. Fant Jr. What these educators point out about that state of education and the needs of the hour really should be taken to heart by every thinking man, woman, boy, and girl, but especially by every nonthinking man, woman, boy, and girl. Such would be part of moving the church and country in the direction of much-needed reformation. I doubt that cultural reform and church reform can happen without serious educational reform, starting with our own children in the church.

True Biblical Equality and—Then There's Egalitarianism

Doug Wilson on the biblical notion of equality and its modern distortion egalitarianism:

The Christian faith teaches and brings true biblical equality. The Christian faith also rejects egalitarianism, which is a false definition of equality. Christian equality can be described as equity, or even-handedness. Egalitarianism, in contrast, demands sameness, or equality of outcome. These two visions of equality are about as comparable as wet and dry. Think of it in terms of ten teenage boys trying to dunk a basketball: equity means that they all face the same ten-foot standard, and only two of them can do it—equity thus usually means differences in outcome. Egalitariansm wants equality of outcome, and there is only one way to get that—lower the net. Sameness of outcome requires differences in the standards.

—For a Glory and a Covering: A Practical Theology of Marriage (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2006), 90.

Like a Hearty Meal for a Hungry Man

A short way back, I posted about a marriage study a group of us have been doing together this summer using Doug Wilson's book For a Glory and a Covering: A Practical Theology of Marriage. And I said that I expected to do some blogging on the book. However, I've not done any yet.

I've not done so mainly because I've just enjoyed taking the book in as one takes in a hearty meal for nourishment. What can I say? I'm finding it to be solid food for edification. And I've not found myself wanting to analyze and reflect much. I'm just eating. I'm being nourished.

But I do want to record a couple choice quotes. And perhaps I'll get into a more analytical mode later.

In the introduction Wilson recalls how "C. S. Lewis once commented that men think that love means not giving trouble to others, while women think that it means taking trouble for others" (xix). Great observation. To our shame, men.

Speaking then to how some women veer toward overachieving, Wilson recalls how "Lewis once described a woman 'who lived for others'—and you could tell who those were by their hunted expression" (xix). And of course we all know someone like this.

Jesus Is Lord, So Caesar Is Not

Good post over at Between Two Worlds linking to a recent post by Doug Wilson on the lordship of Christ. Read everything you can by Wilson on politics and economics! And don't delay!

And related to this subject, here's a recent sermon by Wilson that deserves a wide hearing and response. It's a sermon addressed to the governor and legislature of Idaho.

May God raise up more prophetic preaching of this sort. What would happen if pulpits started preaching like they really believed the basic Christian confession that Jesus is Lord? We just might see some reform. Just maybe.

Shooting Off Fireworks While Wearing Shackles

There is undoubtedly much for which to give thanks to God this July 4th. However, we ought not to forget how far we've fallen from the true and living God and the freedoms he gave this country.

Doug Wilson's "Five Aphorisms for the Fourth" follows as a reminder that our celebrations are misguided if we don't realize how far we've fallen from what we used to have to celebrate, and that the celebrations are starting to ring hollow.

"The problem with George III was that he was from the House of Hanover. The problem with Obama is he's from the House of Handover.

Christians who absolutize obedience to the 'existing authorities' never seem to think that the Constitution is an existing authority.

Shooting off fireworks without a real commitment to liberty now is a red, white, and blue way of building tombs for the prophets.

To approve resistance to tyranny long-dead without resisting tyranny here and now is . . . convenient somehow.

As we observe the 4th, recent events make it inappropriate to celebrate our freedoms. It is appropriate, however, to reassert them."

Making Texts Do Little Poodle Tricks?

Over at Blag and Mablog, Doug Wilson helpfully describes the task of systematic theology:

Systematic theology is nothing less than remembering what you read in other passages while you are reading this passage. The kind of thing that gives systematic theology a bad name is remembering what you thought other passages said, privileging them in some form of special pleading, and making the verse in front of you do little poodle tricks.

The whole post, which addresses the reality of the faithful and unfaithful within the same Church, may be found here.

Father Hunger

Doug Wilson began a series called "Father Hunger" about a month ago. You can find the first in this series here. The series is proving thus far to be very instructive, and I would encourage fathers to give it a listen. Wilson is surely right in seeing "father hunger" as one of the great problems of our times.

"Some" Scholars Are Stuck

Good point, Pastor Wilson and Mr. Murray. I'd only change the "some" to "most." But then again, I'm in graduate school at what's considered a top tier evangelical college, you know, of the flagship variety, so my view is doubtless skewed.

DG's 2012 Conference for Pastors

Last week I went with a group of men from my local church to DG's 2012 Conference for Pastors: God, Manhood, & Ministry: Building Men for the Body of Christ. We had a wonderful time. Undoubtedly the conversations were the best part of the few days. Among the talks given, I found Doug Wilson's outstanding: "'Father Hunger' in Leading the Home," and "'Father Hunger' in Leading the Church." And Crawford Lorrits' message moved me to tears.

The interview with Piper and Wilson was a conversation that for years I've hoped for and even prayed for. It was immensely illuminating and stimulating, especially as some of the emphases and differences of these two ministries were explored face to face with each other.

I've easily listened to hundreds of sermons from each of these ministries, and I've felt a number of the tensions brought to the fore in this discussion. I have a lot to explore on this score, but for now I'll say this much about some of these tensions: I think we must live in the tensions of conversations such as this one in conversation with God's Word and one another, trying to do what is pleasing in the Lord's sight, seeking the wisdom and guidance of God's good Spirit. In other words, we never settle such tensions and move on. We live in them.

A one-size-fits-all approach to the questions raised, neglecting the Bible's balance and breadth, surely leaves lives and churches truncated. This one-size-fits-all tendency, afflicting many evangelical churches (e.g., some discussions on the mission of the Church), poses all sorts of problems. I find that many of the emphases and strengths of Piper and Wilson complement each other rather well and are not contradictory at all. Yet there's a deep need for wisdom to work out in day to day life the details of the tensions of biblical teachings and Bible teachers. And this requires dependence. A good place to be.

So have at these resources, men. They're food for your faith.

What to Expect at a CREC Church

Here you may find Pastor Wilson's ongoing explanation (who knows how much longer he'll go) of what to expect at a CREC church. As I've said before, this is a growing communion that has impressed me a great deal. And you should probably consider visiting one if one has been planted in your area.

CREC: Baptism and Christian Education

Here is one of the many reasons (not the only reason, nor the main) why I've been so impressed with the CREC churches. If there is one in your area, you should probably visit it.

Ron Paul, Enemy of Liberty?

There's a lot to like about Ron Paul. But we ought not to be naïve. There's a lot to like in part because he gets so much right; but there's also a lot to like just because the alternatives are so bad. Here's a good post that points out why unqualified support of Paul makes little scriptural sense. I point to this not because I don't think we should respect the man, nor because I don't believe he's a good man. Regarding the former: I think we should; and about the latter: I think he is. Yet, one can see and hear and feel the hitches and catches in his political machine. So, as Wilson says, if you're going to vote for him, as I may well do, do so with your eyes open. But don't vote for him with the same kind of naïveté that accompanied the vote for the guy we're now stuck with—stuck with, that is, with eyes wide open, mouths agape, aghast. 

A Submissive Woman in the White House?

Pastor Doug Wilson's post addressing Michelle Bachmann's flubbing the questions coming her way regarding submission ought to be read widely. We need to think like Christians regarding these issues, and we need to respond with backbone and shrewdness. Bachmann, for all her talk about having a titanium spine, rather leaves us doubting whether she can stand firm. And many of us are wondering about her husband's spine, too. If any is to vote for Bachmann, her husband needs to be taken into account. And what kind of man is he?

Sexual Intercourse, Old School

At Doug Wilson's Blog and Mablog, you'll find a fine, succinct account of marriage biblically defined. Here's a clipping:

A marriage requires two components or elements. The first is old school sexual intercourse and the second is a socially recognized set of vows, committing the couple to a legally recognized and protected state of marriage. If one or the other is missing, then so is the marriage. 

To use the language of philosophy, each of these is a necessary condition for marriage (without which, not), but not a sufficient condition. In other words, you can't have a marriage without the presence of both of these elements, but the mere presence of one of them does not constitute or create the marriage. The absence of either will result in no-marriage, but the presence of either does not automatically result in marriage. You must have both together. 

The first element is the one flesh union (Gen. 2:24).

Nonsense Up With Which We Shall Not Put

What follows was swiped from a recent post by Doug Wilson giving writing counsel:

In the 18th century, during the ascendancy of the English dictionary makers and grammarians, it was foolishly thought that Latin was superior to English, and that things that couldn't be done in Latin, like ending sentences with prepositions, shouldn't be done in English. This is where we get the absurd rule that one must never, ever end a sentence with a preposition. As Winston Churchill put it, "that's the sort of nonsense up with which we shall not put."

Ahh, grammar and godliness.  Music to my ears, honey to my tongue, refreshment to my bones.

Marriage as Manifest Glory

Some years back, I believe in 2004, Doug Wilson preached 40 sermons on marriage.  Well, my wife Em and I have been listening to some of those in the evening as we relax before bed.  The third one in the series titled "The Leaden Rule" is an exposition of the golden rule applied to marriage.  Wonderfully helpful, theologically rich.  I highly commend it and the whole series. 

This is my third time through these sermons.  The first time made me want to get married (I'm serious; prior to sermon 39 in the series I had by and large strenuously resisted the idea).  The second helped prepare me for marriage (and all those invovled by extension).  The third time, now with my wife, is helping us continue to mature in our one-flesh union in order to put the gospel on display.  It is all about the gospel of the glory of the grace of God.  Pastor Wilson's sermons are theologically charged toward this end.  So have a listen!  You can get these at Canon Press.