Skip to main content

Defending Doug Wilson?

I do not consider myself a Doug Wilson fanboy, nor do I consider it my duty to defend his antics.  I really don't think he needs my assistance, nor would I care to defend everything the man has said or done.  Nevertheless, both Christian ethics and intellectual honesty require us to take a man's words in context and to allow him to say what he has actually said.

Wilson's latest kerfuffle stems from a meandering article aimed primarily at discussing the intolerance of Christianity by modern liberals.  This is the paragraph that is causing the stir among those who would most likely concur with the general drift of his argument:

So in this system all is not permitted. Christianity is not permitted. Christ is not permitted. Christians are not permitted. To be an orthodox and believing Christian is to be guilty of violating the only real taboo they have. So I would want to encourage you in this. Go right ahead. Be ultimately transgressive. Subvert the dominant paradigm. Challenge the status quo. Believe in Jesus. Find a cute girl and marry her. Have babies. If you are prepared to really get out there, have white babies. Take them all to church. Go ahead. Chicks dig bad boys.

Racist!  Kinist!  White Supremacist!

Now, wait a minute.  Let's take this in context and try to comprehend what Wilson is and is not saying.

Firstly, note what Wilson does not say.  Wilson does not say that white people are the best or that we should segregate churches.  He does not say that interracial marriage is wrong or even suboptimal.  He does not say that white babies are the future of America or that America is going to collapse if we don't have enough white babies.  Having read and reread the article, I can find nothing that would remotely justify accusations of racism or Kinism (a fancy word for a fancy kind of racism).  He never associates Christianity with whiteness or the American nation, but, in fact, twice emphasizes that Christ came to be the Savior and Lord of all nations, which is a pretty non-racist thing to say.   

So, what did he actually say?  Why did he mention white babies?  Wilson's main premise is that neutrality doesn't exist, and that we shouldn't expect it.  We, as Christians, should not expect to be treated fairly by those who hate our religion.  His discussion of the etymology of the word antichrist and his references to De Sade and Nietzsche are designed to drive home this point--the God-hating Left doesn't really want tolerance for all; they want to replace our political and religious tradition with one wherein they assume the role of God.  As Carl Trueman would say, the neo-Marxists are anti-historical.

The paragraph quoted above is couched in this context.  His meaning, then, seems pretty clear to me.  Frankly, I have no idea how people have managed to misconstrue his intent so badly.  Wilson is simply telling us that we need to be boldly countercultural, and the easiest way to do that is go about living normal, traditional lives.  Be a Christian.  Get married.  Have kids.   

His sarcastic quip about white babies, then, is not advocating for Kinism or some other form of racism, but is designed to rebuff the modern liberal concept of white guilt.  Modern liberals, particularly in Hollywood, BLM, and universities, tell us that to be born white is to be automatically tainted by the guilt of generations of white oppression.  If you aren't being intentionally multicultural, they insist, then you are a racist.  This is the narrative consistently pushed by the Left.  Whether you're turning on the TV or going to college, you'll find that there is nothing more faux pas right now than having a normal, white Christian family.  Wilson is mocking this view of white guilt, which is itself actually quite racist.  If you really want to tick liberals off, he advises, start a nuclear family.  If you really, really want to go against the grain, make it a white family.  That is what the Left really hates!

That's it.  That's all he's saying.  I'm sure Wilson has said some uncouth things that warrant apologies, but this ain't it.  

As a final aside, I think that Christians, particularly Reformed Christians, have a tendency to assume the absolute worst about theologians or politicians they don't like.  We jump at any opportunity to react inflammatorily to any words that might possibly allow for misinterpretation.  I know I have been guilty of this before, and I see others do it online way too often.  This is absolutely a violation of the 9th Commandment, and we should be wary of it.  We need to make sure we are not misrepresenting our religious, political, or philosophical opponents, even that bogeyman from Idaho.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more