Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Disagreement = satanist

Wilson tries to defend his actions by pointing to a warning by CS Lewis on the tyrannical Nanny State. In Screwtape Letters and The Abolition of Man Lewis pointed out that “therapeutic punishment” is always more tyrannical than retributive punishment.  If you do something wrong--steal from the IRS, witness-tampering, molesting a two-year old, etc--then you receive the penalty appropriate to the crime and that’s it.  Punishment over.  The Nanny State sees you as sick and wants to “rehab” you until you are better.  Of course, it will determine when, if ever, you are better.

Like of all of Wilson’s posts, he deflects any blame from himself by pointing to the abortion industry.  “Yeah, attacking the victim and covering up pedophiles might be bad, but you should see the abortion industry.”  True, the abortion industry is bad, but that’s not what I am talking about at the moment.  Further, when Wendell Berry tried to pull the same stunt you called him on it.  

But in this post is Wilson even talking about the Sitler/Wight scandal?  It’s hard to say, initially.  He does leave us hints.  

In controversies over abuse, victims, brokenness, and so on, this is why appeals to justice (i.e. let’s find out what actually happened) so often fall on deaf ears. They don’t care about executing the right prisoner. That is not what this is about. They don’t need to find out if you were the culprit. All they need to know is whether you are the patient.

Since he is talking about victims of “abuse,” he probably doesn’t mean Planned Parenthood.  So I take this to be a reference to Sitler.  

But before you are allowed to attack him, he brings up Jesus.

This is why proclamation of the gospel has two parts. The first concerns the objective content of the gospel — what God has done for us as sinners. The contents of the Apostles Creed would be a wonderful summary of the message of the objective gospel in this sense. Christ born, Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ ascended, and Christ pouring out His Spirit of forgiveness on a lost and truculent world.

This is great and true and all.  I never once doubted Sitler’s repentance (though his failing a lie detector test--something the Wilsonistas ignore--did give me pause).  The problem is not “Can Jesus forgive him?”  The problem is, “Granted that Jesus forgave him, we must also realize that the abuser is still wired a certain way and we have to protect other sheep, including the abuser’s (future) children.”  Jesus’s objective dying for me or anyone else doesn’t change the fact that we still have physiological garbage.  This is what St Gregory the Theologian called ataktos, chaotic flux, baggage.  

The passions must be healed.  This is a lifelong process.  The CREC has never been known for self-denial and biblical ascetism.

Anyone who disagrees is a Satanist

This quote should bother you,

So when confronted with the frenzied spirit of accusation, that central tactic and technique of the father of lies, the only appropriate response is to declare the gospel, and to take refuge in the gospel by declaring it. This is why — all through last week’s outcries — I turned again and again to the death of Jesus Christ for sinners. When I did this, I was not changing the subject. That is what all of this is about.

Translated: anyone who accuses me is under the Father of Lies.  This is why anyone hoping for reform within the CREC is deluding himself.  As long as the pope of the CREC associates “accusations of him” with “The Father of Lies,” well, why bother?

So no, there is nothing to fix. No, not at all. This is what we are called to. Jesus died outside the camp, and He died in a contemptible place. We are not told to bring that cross of His inside the city limits, silverplate it, and start leaving baskets of fruit in front of it.

This is worse than anything Jay Adams has ever written.  It's like saying, "There can't possibly be anything wrong with your brain. Therefore, you're okay."

Let’s put it this way:

If a man murders someone, asks Jesus to forgive him, and then hides behind the altar when the cops show up, what do you do? (This was a common situation in some ancient churches.  LOL)

A homosexual struggles with his desires but repents and believes in Jesus.  His sin is objectively covered by Jesus, yet he still wrestles with his desires.


  1. It's all very conveniently one sided. You're being accused? Your enemies are Satan. People don't like your appellations or find your writing judgmental, libelous, or finger-pointing? Well, Pharisees didn't like what Jesus had to say and killed Him for it.

    Wilson has vaunted proof-texting and entered a new dominion: proof-typing. It's fundamentalism (in the negative connotation) in medieval garb.

    1. I can see why Augustine would forcefully conclude that while there is indeed right and wrong, correct and incorrect, verity and falsehood, love is the true measure. If an interpretation or use of scripture creates love, well, it may be off, and no lauded for being off, but accepted for its love.

      Of course, this raises the question of defining love...but at least it's a start!