Two days ago, I wrote about Doug Wilson’s interview on CNN, and predicted that it would be the subject of the conservative Christian social media debate of the week.
You call the position laughable that they think society could change, yet in the same sentence you also say that it's been this way for "100 years." What was the position before this? And what were the base assumptions of the roles of men on women for most of history, including in the church? In the whole of history, what we have is novel, and they atrocities that exist in our society don't vindicate the idea that our morality has "progressed" in any sense. Evils were exchanged for other evils by a society that rejects God.
Christians don't believe in progressive morality, we believe it is rooted in God and the revelation he has given us.
The laughable assumption is that because something is done right now that it is the best way to do it. How could we assume that our short 100 year history of growing egalitarianism is of course the most natural and biblical? How was this missed by all of our forefathers in the faith? What chronological snobbery to think we are simply better or more enlightened than they.
As they stated, they don't see this changing overnight, or next year. They know these kind of societal changes take time. The only true progress is that toward a biblical society that loves and serves God in every aspect of life. Anything outside of that is true regress.
Yes, it's laughable to argue that a populace who has become generationally accustomed to full enfranchisement would remove it, just like it's laughable for you to frame the issue under "morality," when universal suffrage was a primarily Christian movement.
Wilson explained he is under no delusion that this generation would do such a thing. He said "250 years" from now to indicate this is a long term push toward what they believe is a more biblical system. Maybe this is laughable in a similar way a modern democracy would have been laughable to a medieval monarchy. Something sounding crazy to a given generation is no standard of truth or wisdom.
I'm framing it as moral because your vitriolic reaction implies you also find it to be a moral issue. But even so, I'm sure you would not advocate that a a large number of Christians pushing a political view makes it correct. Christians can and have been wrong on many things collectively. Our standard is the word of God. And if something doesn't line up with what we have advocate before, we are duty bound to course correct. Semper reformanda
Yes, I'm vitriolic towards the heretical beliefs of Moscow that provide cover for abuse.
I think you, and others, are in such a bubble that you don't realize how ubiquitously disliked these proposals are, and how you're only making yourselves more disliked with these lines of argumentation, which makes the proposals even more laughable.
Its a good thing God doesn't determine truth by majority then.
Of course we are aware. The world system will always hate God's good truth and design. When you find yourself aligning more with people who love and approve what God calls an abomination than with what the church has taught for millennia as the clear witness of Scripture, that ought to give anyone pause and concern who follows the Lord. The road is broad that leads to destruction.
further, You've not engaged any of my clear rebuttal of your main points.
Its strange that you find it laughable and heretical to desire to conform our worldview to Scripture not culture, as one who identifies as a Christian. I feel this should be approved of even if you disagree with the interpretation, but you continually reject it in favor of appeal to morality by consensus.
See, the thing you're not getting is that continuing this position implies that you're the arbiter of God's truth, on an issue that has no clear biblical mandate and lands within liberty of conscience, none the less. It's also a position that the majority of orthodox, conservative Christians disagree with you on. All of that is what makes the proposition laughable.
If it falls withing liberty of conscience, then you have no right to call those who disagree with you heretics, much less to laugh.
There is no clear biblical political system or manual on who should vote, no. But we maintain that God makes clear distinctions between the roles and purposes of man and women that in no way make them of different value or dignity, and that this extendeds to the political sphere is not a fringe idea historically, only in modernity.
I'm not personally convinced it's a necessity to repeal the 19th as Moscow is. The reason I'm engaging is because you are dedicated to maintaining that it's simply a silly, unpopular, and evil perspective. Yet history before the last 100 years disagrees with you that it is so simple, regardless of what other conservativea may think. And if they genuinely believe that this arises from principles found in scripture, and the position itself is not directly condemned by scripture, than as you said it is a liberty of conscience issue.
But scrolling through your other posts it seems you do not care but have dedicated all your free time to accusing the brothren.
It doesn't matter how stupid conservative reformed Christianity may or may not be. It's never intrinsically a waste of time to evaluate any issue against the Bible simply because it seems a settled matter in society. Slaver Christendom likewise mocked abolitionists as impractical. If you were in a tiny minority about your anti nationalist crusade, you'd be likewise mocked as impractical.
Surely you don't want others to mock any biblical argument you might make against nationalism as the work of a silly dreamer?
Never lose sight of the prize and never drop biblicism, even if your opponents do it badly.
Not every half-baked political proposition a religious extremist comes up with deserves full scriptural examination. In fact, to do so is to debate on his terms. You'd be better off to focus on how Wilson pushes Trinitarian heresy in order to create a hierarchical system within his church, and then you're covering motivations for his political view of women.
Every half baked thing an extremist comes up with deserves 100% scriptural examination. It might be an easy exam, it might be hard, but if you can't come up with something solid to rebut the extrememist, you lose. Why lose just because of spite?
The Quakers were weirdos but they were literally the only Christians who grokked the Bible's stance on chattel slavery. All the non weird folks failed spectacularly. You'd have dismissed that view because of their other weirdness.
Forget about Wilson for a minute. This is a solid principle no matter what you're dealing with. Don't be reactive, be principled.
You are assuming democratic norms remain in place. I don't think we can assume that. Yes, Wilson's ideas are wildly unpopular, but then neither Hitler, Mussolini nor Lenin had majority popular support when they seized power either.
The US military is currently under the leadership of someone who thinks women shouldn't vote. That's frightening. Maybe this too shall pass, but then again, maybe it won't. Doomsday predictions rarely actually come to pass, but sometimes they do. The Third Reich really did happen. So as unlikely as it seems to be, eternal vigilance remains the cost of liberty.
I wouldn’t write off a radical idea on the mere presumption of it’s preposterousness. Many crazy unthinkable things have actually happened just in the last century.
The whole reason that the CNN reporter highlighted it is because it's something so ridiculously regressive that the overwhelming majority of Americans would recoil at the thought. The right wing in this country is more socially liberal than Democrats were thirty years ago. It's not going to happen.
You call the position laughable that they think society could change, yet in the same sentence you also say that it's been this way for "100 years." What was the position before this? And what were the base assumptions of the roles of men on women for most of history, including in the church? In the whole of history, what we have is novel, and they atrocities that exist in our society don't vindicate the idea that our morality has "progressed" in any sense. Evils were exchanged for other evils by a society that rejects God.
Christians don't believe in progressive morality, we believe it is rooted in God and the revelation he has given us.
The laughable assumption is that because something is done right now that it is the best way to do it. How could we assume that our short 100 year history of growing egalitarianism is of course the most natural and biblical? How was this missed by all of our forefathers in the faith? What chronological snobbery to think we are simply better or more enlightened than they.
As they stated, they don't see this changing overnight, or next year. They know these kind of societal changes take time. The only true progress is that toward a biblical society that loves and serves God in every aspect of life. Anything outside of that is true regress.
God help us.
Yes, it's laughable to argue that a populace who has become generationally accustomed to full enfranchisement would remove it, just like it's laughable for you to frame the issue under "morality," when universal suffrage was a primarily Christian movement.
Wilson explained he is under no delusion that this generation would do such a thing. He said "250 years" from now to indicate this is a long term push toward what they believe is a more biblical system. Maybe this is laughable in a similar way a modern democracy would have been laughable to a medieval monarchy. Something sounding crazy to a given generation is no standard of truth or wisdom.
I'm framing it as moral because your vitriolic reaction implies you also find it to be a moral issue. But even so, I'm sure you would not advocate that a a large number of Christians pushing a political view makes it correct. Christians can and have been wrong on many things collectively. Our standard is the word of God. And if something doesn't line up with what we have advocate before, we are duty bound to course correct. Semper reformanda
Yes, I'm vitriolic towards the heretical beliefs of Moscow that provide cover for abuse.
I think you, and others, are in such a bubble that you don't realize how ubiquitously disliked these proposals are, and how you're only making yourselves more disliked with these lines of argumentation, which makes the proposals even more laughable.
Its a good thing God doesn't determine truth by majority then.
Of course we are aware. The world system will always hate God's good truth and design. When you find yourself aligning more with people who love and approve what God calls an abomination than with what the church has taught for millennia as the clear witness of Scripture, that ought to give anyone pause and concern who follows the Lord. The road is broad that leads to destruction.
further, You've not engaged any of my clear rebuttal of your main points.
Its strange that you find it laughable and heretical to desire to conform our worldview to Scripture not culture, as one who identifies as a Christian. I feel this should be approved of even if you disagree with the interpretation, but you continually reject it in favor of appeal to morality by consensus.
See, the thing you're not getting is that continuing this position implies that you're the arbiter of God's truth, on an issue that has no clear biblical mandate and lands within liberty of conscience, none the less. It's also a position that the majority of orthodox, conservative Christians disagree with you on. All of that is what makes the proposition laughable.
If it falls withing liberty of conscience, then you have no right to call those who disagree with you heretics, much less to laugh.
There is no clear biblical political system or manual on who should vote, no. But we maintain that God makes clear distinctions between the roles and purposes of man and women that in no way make them of different value or dignity, and that this extendeds to the political sphere is not a fringe idea historically, only in modernity.
I'm not personally convinced it's a necessity to repeal the 19th as Moscow is. The reason I'm engaging is because you are dedicated to maintaining that it's simply a silly, unpopular, and evil perspective. Yet history before the last 100 years disagrees with you that it is so simple, regardless of what other conservativea may think. And if they genuinely believe that this arises from principles found in scripture, and the position itself is not directly condemned by scripture, than as you said it is a liberty of conscience issue.
But scrolling through your other posts it seems you do not care but have dedicated all your free time to accusing the brothren.
It doesn't matter how stupid conservative reformed Christianity may or may not be. It's never intrinsically a waste of time to evaluate any issue against the Bible simply because it seems a settled matter in society. Slaver Christendom likewise mocked abolitionists as impractical. If you were in a tiny minority about your anti nationalist crusade, you'd be likewise mocked as impractical.
Surely you don't want others to mock any biblical argument you might make against nationalism as the work of a silly dreamer?
Never lose sight of the prize and never drop biblicism, even if your opponents do it badly.
Not every half-baked political proposition a religious extremist comes up with deserves full scriptural examination. In fact, to do so is to debate on his terms. You'd be better off to focus on how Wilson pushes Trinitarian heresy in order to create a hierarchical system within his church, and then you're covering motivations for his political view of women.
Every half baked thing an extremist comes up with deserves 100% scriptural examination. It might be an easy exam, it might be hard, but if you can't come up with something solid to rebut the extrememist, you lose. Why lose just because of spite?
The Quakers were weirdos but they were literally the only Christians who grokked the Bible's stance on chattel slavery. All the non weird folks failed spectacularly. You'd have dismissed that view because of their other weirdness.
Forget about Wilson for a minute. This is a solid principle no matter what you're dealing with. Don't be reactive, be principled.
Not everyone deserves your platform, or your acquiescence to debate on their terms. Not every statement from an extremist is a three-alarm fire.
You are assuming democratic norms remain in place. I don't think we can assume that. Yes, Wilson's ideas are wildly unpopular, but then neither Hitler, Mussolini nor Lenin had majority popular support when they seized power either.
The US military is currently under the leadership of someone who thinks women shouldn't vote. That's frightening. Maybe this too shall pass, but then again, maybe it won't. Doomsday predictions rarely actually come to pass, but sometimes they do. The Third Reich really did happen. So as unlikely as it seems to be, eternal vigilance remains the cost of liberty.
I wouldn’t write off a radical idea on the mere presumption of it’s preposterousness. Many crazy unthinkable things have actually happened just in the last century.
The whole reason that the CNN reporter highlighted it is because it's something so ridiculously regressive that the overwhelming majority of Americans would recoil at the thought. The right wing in this country is more socially liberal than Democrats were thirty years ago. It's not going to happen.