Of Rennaissance Men, Folkies, and Critics

An off-line critic says I'm not only unable to back my contention that God judges the United States for, among other things, the war in Iraq, but also that I seem once again to be picking on his pastor, Doug Wilson. Also, I unthinkingly quote young folk-rock stars. If he's upset, I imagine others are, too, so here is my response to him, with minor editing to protect his anonymity:

I suspect that you'd like a list of proof-texts that support my contention that God is judging, and continues to judge, nations and peoples who mock Him. I don't mean to be snide here, and I apologize if it sounds that way, but my guess is that unless I can find "George W. Bush," "rush to war," and "idiocy of tax cuts in wartime" in my concordance, you're not going to be satisfied. And so I attempted, over the course of three or four long posts, to elaborate on the theology informing my contention -- knowing that you, like many other readers, are Biblically literate and understand that theology is a string, a common-ness, of understanding God rather than an appeal to a few chosen passages. I suppose I could've pointed out most of the minor prophets, or the 40s chapters of Isaiah, or dovetailed into Jesus' radically new teachings about how we treat enemies, and yet I had assumed you'd have seen them. I guess not.

Here's what I find troubling. You correctly inferred that my post explaining my use of the folksinger guy's quote was a reference to your pastor. It was. Doug Wilson claims expertise in pastoral theology, and I find much of his theology, particularly involving marriage and family, but especially the Federal Vision, to be lacking. I'm currently wading through a condemnation of FV theology that is compelling and illuminating. Yet that's the reason we have the theological diversity in the Body that we have -- if you find his theology and teaching to be in line with Scripture, which I assume is non-negotiable for you, then you're free to attend his church. I couldn't.

To be fair, he's not the only minister I've ever run into whose theology is off base. But Wilson doesn't stop at questionable theology, and here's where I think he's at best in error and, more to the point, dangerous. He's done untold damage to the witness of the Gospel by playing historian and defending slavery. He was wrong Biblically, and he embarrassed himself in front of those who don't care about theology but do understand historical analysis. My husband is fascinated by Lewis and Clark, and knows as much about the Expedition as anyone I know. But he is not a prominent minister of the Gospel, dabbling in history to defend the indefensible and thus polluting the testimony of the message of Christ to an unbelieving community -- most of whom appear to be smart enough to recognize his foolishness but who, lamentably, have his teaching linked to Christ's Gospel. "Playing historian" in such a high-stakes (and pointless) matter is a mark of gross immaturity, if I'm feeling generous, and irredeemable arrogance . . . if I'm not.

So he gets it wrong on theology and has a whole church confused about justification, sacramentalism, covenant, and individual regeneration. Undeterred, even shamelessly, he forges on, damaging a community's introduction to the Gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus by deciding to "do history" to prove that he's not "embarrassed by anything in the Word of God." Believe me, a little embarrassment by his exegesis would be appropriate, as would a humble acknowledgment of error. And yet he marches on . . . to health and nutrition.

Doctors, nutritionists, scientists, and the reasonable people around us all recognize that some foods are barely "food," and that a diet low in fat, low in animal products, low in alcohol, and low in processed foods is healthier than one that isn't. One hardly needs a Ph.D. to determine that whole-grain toast is a better breakfast choice than a Twinkie, and yet no one whose voice is taken seriously demands -- as an act of faith or a symptom of common sense -- that Christian maturity is a diet-based proposition. But Doug Wilson, having made a shipwreck of theology and history, presumes now to wade into the world of Dietary Moderation and The Spiritual Vacuum That Causes it -- just because, well, I guess because he can. While virtually every medical professional simply urges that people eat all things in moderation, avoid as much of the bad stuff as they can, and live a life of good health without either mindless gluttony or excessive preoccupation with diet, Wilson mocks those who are concerned about what to eat, what not to eat, where their food comes from, what it does to their bodies, and how they should best approach the groaning table. Worse, he links the normal common sense that people ought to exercise about food and, astonishingly, diagnoses both a serious spiritual hunger AND attempts to argue against the bulk of medical research over the decades, urging his followers to eat, drink, and be merry, because tomorrow, evidently, there'll be another seemingly confusing, contradictory study about food.

People's lives are at stake here. They HAVE to be concerned about cholesterol, allergies, and toxins. A wise pastor would urge them, if had any need to comment at all, to listen to their doctors, listen to their bodies, and listen to their consciences. And, speaking of conscience, Wilson seems oblivious to the admonishments in Romans and First Corinthians that we NEVER are to cause another believer to stumble by insisting on eating this, drinking that, or not doing either. I can't imagine being a recovering alcoholic coming to the Christ Church communion table, knowing that my pastor believes my preference for juice -- my shunning of wine -- is symbolic of a feminized, weakened, "grape juice" kind of Gospel. I may very well have "promised Grandma I'd never touch a drop," and if that's what my conscience dictates, then how dare he proclaim that Christians have to like, and drink, wine; that wine is the issue at communion, not Christ; and that somehow my preference, borne in weakness, uncertainty, experience, or conscience, is "less than" someone else's.

So, having mangled theology, manipulated history, made mincemeat of diet and health, he cruises on to economics, proclaiming -- because he's Doug Wilson, and he can -- that buying Fair-Trade coffee, for example, is evidence of "tender-heart, tender-head" sentimentalism unbecoming the Christian. Eminent economists all over the world, and pastors and theologians who've researched the subject, conclude that while buying FT doesn't solve every problem, it's a good-faith, honest, effective way to encourage social change, prosper the poor, and even witness for Christ. Your pastor seems to spend an inordinate amount of energy explaining away the need, effectiveness, or even virtue of that "helping the poor" thing that so many of us believe to be a vital part of the Christian walk. It's easy, I suppose, to disdain the poor and those who attempt, however imperfectly, to ease their burden. It's harder to actually weave a theology to support that disdain -- and yet, he does, regularly, arrogantly, and with careless regard for the harm he causes.

Theology, history, nutrition, economics (poetry, Latin, the classics, architecture, land development, childbirth, body image, fertility . . . ) -- is there NOTHING of which this man is ignorant? Well, evidently there is. He seems to be entirely unaware of the shame he brings to the Gospel, the confusion he brings to his congregants, and the jaw-dropping arrogance of his every pronouncement.

You ask what I have done to help the poor. I'm not going to jump at the bait, thanks; I'll just say that I believe my Lord is pleased with how Jeff and I respond to the needs of those around us and far away. My checkbook, my pantry, my calendar, my heart, my hands, and my actions are all under His sovereign Lordship. In all humility, I'm not interested in pleasing you in this area. And when I do mention the 12 years I spent working on my own, without pay, ministering to the Mexican immigrants that I worked among, please be assured that it's to bolster my credentials in discussing poverty, immigration, education, and other areas. I got little or no applause for that work, but, again, I think Jesus was pleased. That's all that matters.

I'll end with this: You confuse "common grace" with Kuyperian (and others) views of the enabling grace within that causes us to wonder, perhaps, Who is up there. I am not Arminian, but I believe that the progression of grace is one of "it rains on good and evil alike" to "is there someone there?" to the Spirit's provision of a heart able to hear and accept the gospel (a loose definition of prevenient grace). Connor Oberst, the young man I quoted, said just what he said -- he neither, in saying it, acknowledged God, denied God, or indicated that God was a focus of his words. I think he was giving an interview, not outlining the state of his soul or his grasp of theology, and I wouldn't have thought I'd have to assure you that, yes, I agree that good works aren't salvific (the FV'ers, though, seem unsure), that Connor needs God, and that mankind is sinful.