JOHN STARKE|10:00 PM CT

Exchanging Fisticuffs for Gentleness: Doug Wilson on Bloomington

Earlier this year Doug Wilson traveled from Moscow, Idaho, to the Bloomington campus of Indiana University to deliver a series of lectures on sexuality. In the weeks leading up to the event, articles in the student paper accused Wilson of being sexist and a homophobic racist. At the event, Wilson stood before a crammed lecture hall facing nearly 400 people, many of whom were angry protestors.

Wilson gave two lectures and a two-hour Q&A afterwards. The event was continually interrupted by planned protests, angry outbursts, and hateful slurs. One student was arrested and more than 20 were asked to leave. Nevertheless, Wilson displayed an unusual gentleness throughout.

I asked Wilson a few questions about the event and how to engage in apologetics in such a difficult climate. We talked about the use of satire and gentleness, why the issue of homosexuality is such a challenge to the legitimacy of Christianity today, and what he would’ve done differently.

You were warned about this event. But were you still surprised by the level of animosity?

I was not completely surprised, but I have to say I was somewhat surprised. I know that there are folks out there like that, and I have seen this kind of thing before. But what was surprising was the level of energy in opposing just a couple of talks scheduled for a classroom—their response was way out of proportion to what was going to happen, and so I suppose we should thank them for helping to make it such a roaring success. Seriously . . . couldn’t have done it without them.

You began your first talk saying that you hoped that the listeners would be surprised at what they heard. What about your talk did you hope they would be surprised by, and do you think they were?

The agitprop circulating about me beforehand was that I was a racist hate-slinger, so I wanted those present who had believed their own propaganda about me to run headlong into a major existential contradiction. I wanted to present the gospel in a way that seemed like a good news gospel, and I wanted it to hit them that way.

In these tense situations, satire, gentleness, and respect can all be used in response. You are sometimes known for satire, but surrounded by rudeness and antagonism, your manner stayed fairly gentle. What made you use one tactic over the other?

One of the principles of war is surprise. Satire should always be used as a tool or a weapon, and not as a relief valve for a personality disorder. When nonbelievers are expecting an effeminate and (to them) suitably soft articulation of biblical truth, the use of public satire can often come as a complete surprise, and can be very effective. When they are expecting a hate-filled thug, conjured up in their own imagination, surprising them the other way is also effective.

In addition, I should add that in face-to-face, person-to-person situations like this one, the apostle Paul requires us to speak this way.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

In situations like this where repentance is much needed, gentleness is much called-for. I don’t believe this passage is a “one-size-fits-all” verse, but it is a size that fits the kind of situation Paul was talking about. And I think Paul was talking about just this kind of event.

I heard a popular apologist say recently that if he had to write his apologetics book over again today, he’d begin with his first chapter on homosexuality. Why do you think homosexuality is such a challenge to the legitimacy of Christianity in society today?

I believe it is the perfect cultural expression of postmodern relativism, so much so that I call it pomosexuality. If culture is religion externalized, as Henry Van Til observed, homosexuality (and other forms of deviance) are the perfect manifestation of an evolutionary, re-invent yourself kind of paganism, which is the religious worldview our nation is in the process of adopting. It is no accident, no coincidence, in other words. Gay pride is not the basic problem; the basic problem is plain old pride—refusing to honor the Creator, and refusing to give him thanks. Paul lays the whole thing out in Romans 1. This disease progresses just the way the physician told us it would.

If you had to do the whole experience over again, what would you do differently? And what bit of advice would you give to pastors who minister in similar social climates?

I would try to answer some of the questions better, try to think more nimbly. If you imagine me with a metaphorical tennis racket, not as many of the answers were in the sweet spot as I would have liked. And of course, where I was happy with my answers, I would want to guard against being happy about that in a wrong way. C. S. Lewis has a great poem about that problem called “The Apologist’s Evening Prayer.” I keep a copy of that poem in my Bible.

As far as advice goes, a little bit of calm goes a long way. A crowd like that is wanting me to change my mind about homosexuality (obviously), but they are also wanting me to change my heart, my equilibrium. But why should I change anything in response to their demands? Too many Christians agree to change their hearts while stubbornly refusing to change their minds. But that is just as compromising. It is just another way to give in to them, another way of surrendering. If I don’t want to put them in charge of my doctrine, why would I put them in charge of my joy?

I have felt for years that the besetting sin of conservatives in our cultural engagements is that of being shrill, and I have devoted a great deal of attention in learning how to avoid that problem. I believe this kind of event shows the great need for that kind of approach.

John Starke is an editor for The Gospel Coalition and lead pastor of All Souls Church in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. You can follow him on Twitter.

CATEGORIES: INTERVIEW, Q&A

TAGS: APOLOGETICS, HOMOSEXUALITY

26 June, 2012

"Everything is Political" or is it?

There is an alternative magazine called This Magazine. on it’s masthead it has the subtitle, “Because Everything is Political.” Aside from the journal being really anything but alternative (just more uber-left anarchist stuff), it raises an interesting question:

Is everything indeed, political?

I attended a pastor’s breakfast today that helped me to focus a bit on this question. The reason for the meeting was Ontario’s new anti-bullying bill which is a lot more about social engineering in schools than it is about protecting anyone from getting hurt or harassed. In fact, the law pretty much guarantees that things will get a lot worse for a lot of students under this piece of legislation. More can be read about it here.

The issues raised at the breakfast are valid; as a result of new curriculum in Ontario public schools, the question of the homosexuality, bisexuality, etc., (the categories are getting pretty long and complex) have become settled: no one has the right to be on the dissenting side of the debate, no one can learn otherwise in a public school in Ontario. Those who oppose the rightness, goodness, and normalcy of such behaviour must be reeducated. The acceptance of what the Bible calls sexual sin will be enforced from Kindergarten through grade 12. In Wisconsin, where this curriculum has been adopted, grade school students must participate in a gay pride parade at their school.

Pastors are urged to organize to fight this legislation, and the general slide to lawlessness in public schools. I can sympathize with that. But I think, though, that a political solution might not be the right one, because the problem isn’t a political problem, but a spiritual one.

Secularists see the political realm as the one area of life that really matters. It is there that society, family, the individuals and institutions are shaped for the future. This makes sense, because a secularist does not acknowledge spiritual reality.

To respond to bad public policy with political activism seems, at least on the surface, to be the obvious approach, and, although difficult, the simplest. But the Christian needs to remember that all of life is God’s domain, in spite of the fact that unbelievers move only in the secular-political realm (because for many, that is the only reality acknowledged). So there are places, ideas, realms, if you will, that should be obviously spiritual: human sexuality, marriage, and family for instance.

Marriage has, allegedly, been redefined to include unions that are same-sex. That redefinition is only political, and the political has no authority to do so. Marriage is God’s to define, and define it He did. Widening the debate a little, God has also spoken very clearly about same-sex relationships, and they are forbidden. Sex, however, has also been politicised to the point that the spiritual has been crowded out.

But the Christian knows otherwise: There has never been a same-sex marriage in human history, because such unions are not marriage.

So I think the real culture wars will be less on the political/legislative front, and more to issue of denying the legitimacy of political domination of God’s Rule. Normalizing homosexuality, sanctioning same-sex marriae, and all that accompanies these moves are illegitimate actions for governments. These are not their domains of power or influence, except that power and influence has been usurped.

This is why schools are still going on about bullying: bullying is a spiritual problem, a problem of sin, not a political one. The political does not acknowledge the reality of sin, the need of salvation, or the reality of a God Who judges, so how can the political come up with a solution?

I am not opposed to Christians organizing and doing some things politically, but a couple of thoughts came to me at this meeting. The first was, if Christians were faithful and consistent, why would these trends be so prevalent in our culture today? We are at a spiritual low ebb, and we have sunk lower than we can even recognize. For example, if we consider the most popular Christian book titles (for those who still read), we find first of all, the Bible (purchased by millions, read by hundreds). Following this are books about self, self, and how to have a happy self; or “Christian” fiction. Contemporary Christian music often falls between mind-altering repetitious chanting of the same few lines, aka “worship,” or creepy love songs that seem inappropriate when addressing deity. We have more books, internet, radio, television, DVDs, video games, etc., that all fall under the “Christian” category, and yet we are possibly the most Biblically illiterate generation since the Reformation. We really are, “amused to death.”

The second thought that came to me at this meeting truly hit home, and hard. It was an exhortation from a pastor from a large charismatic congregation in Stoney Creek. He said, “The government is not afraid of the church at prayer. The government is not afraid of the church’s message. But they are afraid when Christians are united and organized!” This garnered some loud “Amens!” from the group, but I found it summarized the political idolatry many Christian organizations, as well as churches and individual Christians, have fallen into: we have exchanged the political for the spiritual.

To wit: If the world isn’t afraid of our message, what’s wrong with our message? As far as I know, the apostle Paul did not organize a political response to Rome, yet his message was so well understood by Rome that he was beheaded, and thousands of Christians were killed for their faith. That tells me that the message was heard and received, and rejected by the government of the day. What message does the government hear from us today? The message of the early church was rejected by early Rome because it placed God as God, and rightly named the rulers and religions of the day as idolatrous. This is why being so political seems so misguided: the church legitimizes governments’ powers when it plays by their rules, rules that are false and idolatrous.

Romans 1:16–17 (ESV) says,

¹⁶ For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it [the gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

I don’t know where in the New Testament that God blesses political prowess. But God has promised salvation through the gospel, and salvation is what sets us free from sin (all sin). Have we really exhausted that power, so that we have to become a political threat to our government before there is change? Do we really think that?

I am not advocating quietism or anything like that. I think Christians should boldly and clearly state God’s truth on all matters of life, and that the government has no right to act in some of the areas it does. The power it claims does not rightfully belong to a government, even if it is a majority. The things of God are God’s, and we would do well to behave accordingly. We must continue to be salt and light, to clearly state Christian truth, and to live the truth so that our lives are seen as a real alternative to live’s lost in confusion.

If you are reading this are thinking that it would be nice for Christians to get out of politics, and therefore out of the way, you’re missing the point. We will always be in the way, and exposing the lie that political reality is the only true faith, or that mankind’s deepest yearnings are satisfied in parliament.

12 June, 2012

I think I found the reason for declining enrollment: smarter parents

This is from the Toronto District School Board:

http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=15&menuid=29095&pageid=24929

Ernesto Che Guevara

Ernesto Che Guevara

Image taken from: http://trcs.wikispaces.com/file/view/che_guevara.jpg/41147947/che_guevara.jpg

Ernesto “Che” Guevara was a leader in Latin America who was born in Argentina. He was a doctor.

When he was young, he travelled through South America on his motor bike and wrote in his journal. While travelling, he was saddened by how poor people were wherever he visited.

He decided that he would give all his time and energy to work to change that. He is called a “revolutionary” because he wanted to change the way people worked and viewed the world. He travelled to do political work in many countries until he helped to win a battle in Cuba, called the Cuban Revolution. He worked in the government there for a few years and then travelled to other countries to do similar work there.

Questions

1) Che noticed that more than not even half of the Cuban people could read or write when he got there in 1959, meaning that many people were illiterate. He started a program to make sure that everyone had a chance to learn to read and write.

Do this: Interview family members: Ask them why they think is it important to be able to read and write. After listening to their answers, answer the question yourself. What do you think?

2) Pick a few countries in South America and go to:

http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/southamerica.html

Click on a map of any country in South America. To the left of each country, on the screen, look for a section called, “More facts and figures” to find theliteracy rate.

Compare the rates of three or more countries. Make a bar or pie graph if you wish at:

http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/

With Che’s vision and the hard work of many people, today Cuba enjoys a literacy rate of over 99.8% (that’s almost 100%, meaning that everyone can read and write. How does this compare with other nations in South America?