Douglas Wilson: Casting the first (and only) stone

Poor Doug Wilson. He has no one to throw stones with anymore.

Here is what he said in a recent post about the Exodus International affair.

I need to say a quick something about Exodus International shutting down, as they did so with apologies extended to gays and lesbians who had been harmed by their reparative therapy.
Here is how one news story put it:

“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism,” Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, said in a statement. “For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical.”

I want first to note the obvious thing about this ... this is a capitulation, a collapse, an apostasy, a travesty, and a moon crater. This is an instance of an organization that existed to call men and women to biblical repentance, and has wound up repenting of their belief in the need for any such repentance. So here is the first lesson — never repent of repenting. Bad idea.

...

In my mind’s eye, I can see when Lot was leaving Sodom, how there was a group of men at the city limits laughing at him. “You know,” they said, “you’re on the wrong side of history.” Lot’s wife nodded slightly, wishing she had married that Chambers fellow instead.

And here's my comment on his blog:

Yes, you’re pretty much all alone now, Douglas. No one else is willing to apply the biblical law to homosexuals.

It didn’t use to be that way though. Not too long ago that verse was loudly and unashamedly proclaimed at Credenda Agenda [produced by Pastor Wilson's church]. Here, for example, is a quote from Magestralis. (Your Eye Shall Not Pity, Greg Dickison, 1999, Vol. 3)

“Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one’s parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16;22:18;22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).”

But you have to go to the wayback machine to find quotes like that anymore. No one is willing to even say aloud the words of Leviticus 20:13.

I guess it’s up to you to throw the first (and only) stone.

I haven't yet got a response from Mr. Wilson. But if I do, I'll let you know what he says.

Douglas Wilson's grammatical argument against gay marriage

I've seen quite a few of Doug Wilson's previous debates (See, for example, Collision: Are Doug Wilson's beliefs good for the world? ) and he always seems to come out on top. But not this time.

The debate took place on February 27 at the University of Idaho in Doug Wilson's (an my) hometown of Moscow. (Unfortunately I was unable to attend the debate since I was out of town at the time.)

The topic was "Is civil marriage for gay couples good for society?" and was moderated by Peter Hitchens, the late great Christopher Hitchens's obnoxious little brother.

Andrew Sullivan argued forcefully and persuasively in favor of the proposition, using his personal experience as a gay married man, while citing data showing the positive effects of gay marriage on society.

Doug Wilson began his argument with these words:

I would like to begin by thanking the Lord for how everything came together. (22:52)

And everything fell apart for him from there.

In his initial fifteen minute presentation, he presented two arguments:

1) If gays are allowed to marry then so will polygamists, bisexuals, first cousins, etc.

2) Gay marriage is grammatically incorrect.

The slippery polygamous slope argument is obvious (and silly) enough, but the grammatical argument requires a bit of explaining. Here's how Douglas Wilson put it in the debate: (36:31)

At a certain point, allowing for changes in the direct object actually changes the meaning of the verb. Andrew appears to agree with this, arguing for "monogamy as central to all marriage." Adding a third person would take away the central element, meaning that such marriages weren't really marriages, making the direct object  "two women", for example, instead of "one woman", means that the verb "to marry" has been altered.  

And, as everyone knows, when the direct object alters the verb, all hell breaks loose.

During the question and answer session, the second question to Doug Wilson was this: (1:24:29)

I listened with great interest to your fifteen minute opening statement, and I heard you drawing lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, but I did not hear a single cogent argument for why Mr. Sullivan and his husband's behavior and marriage does not fit within the line that you would draw. And you have not answered the question and you haven't given any reason why civil marriage between gays is not good for society. Would you care to comment please?

Here was Mr. Wilson's answer:

Yes. I timed my opening comment when the light was good and when the light was not good up here, so I've got a little bit left, and I was addressing that in my conclusion, so I'm going to incorporate that into my five-minute close. Basically. So you're exactly right, that's the missing piece and I urge you to wait for it with bated breath.

To which Mr. Sullivan responded:

When the missing piece is the actual proposition to be debated? (laughter and applause)
"Is civil marriage for gay couples good for society?"
Is it unfair to ask you to answer that now? Why didn't you answer it in the beginning?

Wilson:

In the tradition that I was trained in the conclusion usually comes at the end of the argument.

Sullivan:

This is the premise. This is the core of the argument; it's not a conclusion. If it's the conclusion, then you give me no way to engage it. Right? So you are actually shutting off the debate by keeping the key argument for the end.. 

Wilson:

No, it was the gentleman with the card saying "30 seconds left" that actually shut off the...

Sullivan:

Well now you have all the time in the world to answer the man's question.

Wilson:

I'm happy to answer your question. The reason civil marriage is not good for society is that the changing of the direct object from a woman to a man when a man is considering marriage is that to change the direct object does more than just change the direct object, it changes the meaning of the verb. So the verb "to marry" is changed for all of us.We're not taking a house and adding an extra room, what we're doing is we're going into a new state of affairs to allow marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman is to open the doors to a dilution of what it means to marry at all. And I believe, and this is an area where Andrew and I agree, that an established social institution like marriage ought not to be messed with.

So it's all about direct objects, changing verbs, and adding an extra room to a house.

In his closing statement, Mr. Wilson finally presented a biblical argument against gay marriage. The killer argument that he was saving for last is this: Jesus married the church and the church, it turns out, is female.

Now that's a fine argument except that it fails Wilson's two-pronged test. Since there are many Christian churches, Jesus has many wives. Therefore polygamy is OK. And I don't even want to think about the grammatical implications of Jesus's multiple brides. It would change direct objects, as well as verbs, and require many room additions in the polygamous kingdom of heaven.

Doug Wilson lost the debate because he couldn't present his real views on gay marriage, so he had to talk about slippery slopes, direct objects, and Jesus's marital relations.

You see, Doug Wilson believes in the Bible, and the Bible is clear on gay marriage. Here's what it says:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Doug Wilson believes that this verse is a commandment from God that should be applied today. If he had his way there would be no gay marriage because there would be no gay people. They would all be executed as God commands.

Here is what his church's website (Credenda Agenda) says on the subject.

The civil magistrate is the minister of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:4). God has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office. The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16; 22:18; 22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).

...

God commands the judge to evaluate the crime rather than the criminal. If the crime is one for which God requires death, then death must be the punishment. Your eye shall not pity. … Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an option where God has decided the matter. The magistrate, God's minister, is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's.

Doug Wilson had to censure his own views on homosexuality during the debate. That's why he lost so badly. It's hard to defend a belief that you dare not express.

Doug Wilson quotes Ezekiel 23:20 (NSFW)

"Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts." Ezekiel 23:19-21

Is that pornographic? Did we really need to know how the Assyrians were hung, and how they ejaculated? Well, apparently God thinks so. Every word is profitable, right? Doug Wilson: On Being a Tricky Dancer

Pastor Doug quoted this pornographic passage from Ezekiel to defend a guy named Mark Driscoll, who is the featured speaker at next month's Christ Church conference, right here in Moscow, Idaho.

You see, Mark Driscoll "sees things."

Jesus shows him X-rated movies of people in his congregation having sex.

Here, I'll let MD tell you about it.

But, hey, Doug says, if God can talk about donkey dicks and horse-like splooge in Ezekiel 23:20 (for no apparent reason), then Mark Driscoll can talk about his dirty movies at the Christ Church conference.

You can register for the conference here.

---

Christian New Wire: Sexpert Pastor Mark Driscoll is Told, 'Enough is Enough'

Pyromaniacs: Pornographic Divination

Pyromaniacs: Let's not dance around the real issue

The Christian World View - Mark Driscoll: Is He Qualified To Lead?

Those who agree with Michele Bachmann shouldn't vote for her.

Here's why.

It all has to do with the question that Byron York asked Michele Bachmann at the debate last Thursday night.

In 2006, when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained: "But the Lord said, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husband." As president, would you be submissive to your husband?

It was a surprisingly fair and balanced question for a debate sponsored by Fox News.

Ms. Bachmann didn't answer the question, of course. Instead she said that she respected her husband and was proud of their 28 kids.

And yet she believes she should be submissive to her husband in everything, as though he were God himself. She believes this because she believes in the Bible and the Bible says exactly that.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands. 1 Peter 3:1

Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:4-5

So a vote for Michelle Bachmann is not a vote for her; it's a vote for her husband, Marcus.

And that might be OK with Bachmann's supporters. Marcus is, by all accounts, as bat-shit crazy as his wife. He loves Jesus just as much as she does (maybe even more).

But to vote for Marcus you must vote for Michele, which is something the Bible does not permit.

I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Timothy 2:12-14

A woman president would have authority over men, and thereby cause the word of God to be blasphemed. (If, as Doug Wilson says, Titus 2:5 means anything.)

So those who agree with Michele Bachmann shouldn't vote for her.
(Neither, of course, should anyone else.)

Unitarian Sex: Doug Wilson explains why masturbation is wrong

I know, I've been spending way too much time with Doug Wilson. People are beginning to talk. But I can't help it. He's such a fun guy to hang out with.

Doug's latest post explains why masturbation is so dreadfully wrong. It has to do with Jesus and the church.

It goes like this.

Jesus never married, not when he was alive anyway. But later on, after he was dead, he married the church. And he and the church have been doing what comes naturally to normal heterosexual couples ever since.

Now if a man (Who gives a shit about women?) has sex with himself, well, that's like Jesus having sex, not with the church, but with himself. Which is really kind of creepy. And after Jesus has Unitarian sex with himself, he has to cut off his hand or pluck out his eye, or maybe even stone himself to death. (And he's already dead.) You wouldn't want to see that happen, now would you?

So remember, every time you masturbate, Jesus does too -- and then he stones himself to death after cutting off his hand and plucking out an eye. Think about that while you're masturbating to Christine O'Donnell!

Here's Doug's quote. It sounds so much better the way he says it.

And all men, single or married, should recognize that solitary sex is not the normative biblical pattern. Recalling that the love between a man and woman is a picture of Christ and the church, we should note that, quite apart from the moral and self-discipline issues involved, masturbation is lousy theology.

---

Randomdude123, whose comment I mistakenly deleted (I've asked him to repost), has brought up an important point. Jesus is the husband and the church is his bride. So when a male member of the church masturbates, Jesus is like Christine O'Donnell saying, "Why am I here?" Jesus wants to have sex with you, but you're busy having UU sex with yourself.

But that would be a good thing, wouldn't it? If Jesus has sex with a male church member, then we'd have to kill him according to Leviticus 20:13. So by masturbating you are saving Jesus. Or something like that.

If you want to know for sure, go ask Doug.

The Moral Landscape: Get off your ass scientists

OK. That’s not really the title to the book. It was Jon Stewart’s suggested title during his interview of Sam Harris on the Daily Show. But as Sam said, it would have made a good subtitle.

It’s time for us all (scientists and non-scientists) to get off our asses and get to work.

For too long the semi-official position among scientists and other otherwise reasonable people has been this with regard to morality: Science has nothing to say about it. But it does. In fact, it is the only way we have of getting our morals right.

Obi-Wan Kenobi isn’t our only hope. Science is.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sam Harris
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

It was an interesting interview, but the part I liked best was this:

The God of Abraham gets slavery wrong. Slavery is probably the easiest moral question we’ve ever had to face. And if this book [the Bible] was written by an omniscient deity, the true source of moral wisdom in the universe, it should at least get the question of whether it’s right to own people and treat them like farm equipment right. It doesn’t get that question right. The God of Abraham clearly expects us to keep slaves.

One of the reasons I haven't been posting much lately is that I've been harassing Doug Wilson at his blog. (The other is that I'm reading Sam Harris' new book.) I've especially been pestering him on the issue of slavery, which he used to call "a wonderful issue" about which "the Bible speaks most directly, again and again."

Here’s what he said in Southern Slavery As It Was.

The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented in this booklet is that we will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this "inflammatory" position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here.
...
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

I'm trying to find out if Mr. Wilson still believes that slavery is "wonderful issue." I'm guessing that he doesn't, since he no longer likes to talk (out loud) about it.

I wonder if he agrees more now with the Bible or with Sam Harris?

I'll let you know if I get an answer.

(I recommend that you all visit Doug's blog. But if you do, be nice. Don't call the folks over there ignorant sluts. That really makes them mad.)

---

October 7th Update: Apparently Doug Wilson's view of slavery hasn't changed, at least it was the same in 2005 when he published Black and Tan. Here are some excepts.

The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that I am saying (out lout) that a godly man in 1850 could have been a slave owner. But this “inflammatory” position is the very point where the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. p.46
…
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, malum in se, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians in slave-owning cultures to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe? p.46
…
The radical abolitionist maintained that slave-owning was inherently evil under any circumstances. But in this matter, the Christians who owned slaves in the South were on firm scriptural ground. May a Christian own slaves, even when this makes him part of a larger pagan system which is not fully scriptural, or perhaps not scriptural at all? Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ’s laws governing such situations, the Bible is clear that under such conditions Christians may own slaves. p.51
…
The bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner in a pagan slave system. p.52
…
As far as the apostle [Paul] was concerned, nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing of the Christian church. p.52
…
But apart from the slave trade, in a slave-holding society owning slaves per se was not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it outright, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same way. p.55
…
It is time for us to stand and declare the truth about slavery and to expose the failures of the abolitionist worldview.p.58
…
When we set aside the teaching of Scripture on slavery, and begin to equivocate on what the Bible actually teaches, it was soon discovered that nonbelievers would not let us get away with it. It turns out that there are actual non-Christians out there who have read the Bible and who know what it says. p.62

So I guess Doug Wilson and I don't agree on everything anymore.

Douglas Wilson: Believers should know and meditate on God's killings

As I mentioned before, Doug Wilson and I seem to agree on everything these days.

Here, for example, is what he said about God's killings in the Bible (emphasis mine).

More than one Israelite man went to worship the golden calf because there was a good prospect there for getting laid. It sort of gave the 'golden calf theology' that little extra appeal. God struck twenty-three thousand of them down because of it. We should be well acquainted with God's treatment of them, along with His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, His judgment in the Flood, and so forth. These things were written for us as examples, and apparently God thinks them to be effective examples. We must know them and meditate on them.

Doug says that believers should know and meditate on God's killings, yet he conflated two of God's more impressive killings in his post and got the number of victims wrong.

First God killed 3000 people by forcing friends and family members to kill each other to punish them for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf in Exodus 32:27-28. And then, in a completely separate mass murder, he killed 24,000 (not 23,000) with a plague because some Israelites had sex with Midianite women in Numbers 25:1-9.

Still, I like the way he's thinking. Bible believers should know and meditate on God's killings.

To help them out with that, I've made a list and written a book. I hope they find them useful.

Douglas Wilson and I now agree on pretty much everything

OK. That might be a bit of an overstatement. But we do seem to agree on pretty much everything that we used to argue about, at least as far as I can tell anyway.

Here is a list of things that Douglas and I now seem to agree on:

1. No one should be burned alive or stoned to death (with the possible exception of pedophile priests).

2. Specifically, the following people and acts should not be punished by stoning, as required by the Bible.

   • Blasphemy or cursing -- Leviticus 24:15-23

   • Wizards or women with familiar spirits – Leviticus 20:27

   • Sabbath breakers – Numbers 15:32-36

   • Stubborn, rebellious, drunken sons – Deuteronomy 21:18-21

   • A city-dwelling virgin that doesn’t cry out when raped -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

   • A woman who isn’t a virgin on her wedding night -- Deuteronomy 22:13-21

   • People who argue for the existence of another god -- Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 17:2-5

3. No one should obey God’s command to burn people to death. Specifically, the following people should not be burned to death:

   • A man, wife, and her mother if they are having an affair, get married, or whatever. – Leviticus 20:14

   • A priest's daughter that plays the whore – Leviticus 21:9

4. Homosexuals should not be executed. -- Leviticus 20:13

5. A Christian should not own slaves, even if they are treated well.

If you've read my previous posts about Douglas Wilson's views, you'll know that this is quite a change. Douglas and I disagreed on all of these items just a few years ago.

And it's possible that we still do. I haven't yet got a clear answer from Douglas on this list of agreements. But I hope to see it soon here.

---

October 7, 2010 Update: Doug Wilson and I no longer agree on #5 (slavery).

My conversation with Douglas Wilson

I know, I really should get back to the Book of Mormon and the Quran. But I've found something that's even more fun to do. I'm discussing the Bible with Doug Wilson.

Doug has a blog called Blog and Mablog, and you can find it here. It, of course, is visited mostly by his followers, but anyone can register and comment. And so far at least, all of my comments have been posted.

As you may know, Douglas Wilson has recently become (even more) famous by touring the country with Christopher Hitchens. They even made a movie about it called "Collision" (which I don't recommend, by the way). I've mentioned their online debates and movie before, and I've discussed Doug Wilson's views several times.

OK. So what, you say. Why am I so interested in Doug Wilson's views?

Well, Doug Wilson and I live in the same town (Moscow, Idaho), and people from all over the country (and even the world) move here to the Palouse to join his church. He has a college downtown (New Saint Andrews College) a K-12 school (Logos), a church (Christ Church), several Christ Church businesses, and maybe (I'm guessing here) a thousand or so of Doug's followers in a town of 22,000 or so.

Christ Church is a large enough group to affect our local politics and public school system. But it's not Doug Wilson's followers that bother me: it's Doug Wilson's beliefs.

Doug used to talk openly and often about his beliefs, but ever since news about his pro-slavery book came out, he's stopped doing that. So I honestly don't know what he believes anymore.

So I went to his blog to find out. And I found something that surprised me: an old post from 2005 that was directed at me. So of course, I had to answer that. Here's the post and my reply.

I didn't get a response from that, so I thought I'd try again. In another post, Doug mentioned Philistine foreskins and there's no way I could resist that. (No response on that one either.)

And yesterday, when he began to talk about sodomites, lesbians, and virtual perverts, I just could help but jump in. I got one response from Doug in the form of a parable, along with a dozen or so from his followers. But so far there's been no answer to any of my questions to Doug.

Anyway that's my excuse for not blogging the Quran.

Jesus hates you. (So does Douglas Wilson.)

Douglas Wilson doesn't say much (out loud) anymore. But back in the day, before he became famous debating Christopher Hitchens, he used to say the darndest things.

Here, for example, is what he said in his pro-slavery booklet (co-authored in 1996 with Steve Wilkins), Southern Slavery as it Was:

[N]othing is clearer -- the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our countryprior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instrucitons for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See for example, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, and 1 Timothy 6:1-5.

...

[I]n this booklet ... we will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. (emphasis in original)

In the last few years, though, Douglas hasn't said much (out loud or in print) about godly Christian slave owners or any of the other interesting things that he apparently still (quietly) believes.

Still, once in a while he slips up and the old Doug slips out.

The Bible teaches that God hates.
...
Not only that, but we cannot take refuge in that famous line about hating the sin but loving the sinner. This text says that God hates the people doing these things, and not just the things that are done.
...
At the Day of Judgment, it will be the sinners that are pitched into Hell, not just their sins. The place where God has made it possible to distinguish sins and sinners is in the cross of Jesus Christ. Because of that, our sins can be taken away from us, and separated from us.
...
But this is not because God decided to stop hating sin. No, He hates sin so much that He poured out His wrath on it, even though the place where that wrath was located was in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. His act of love was also an act of hatred. So they are not opposites. The greatest act of love in the history of the human race was the death of Jesus. But at the same moment, in a different respect, the greatest act of divine hatred was also the cross of Jesus.

So Jesus hates you more than you will ever know. He hates you with the greatest hatred the world has ever known. He hates you even more than Douglas Wilson hates you.

If such a thing is possible, that is.

The Bible verse that dare not speak its name

Chris Trumbull of Casper, Wyoming has painted a sign on his fence with a verse from the Bible. Here's what it looks like.

This is a verse that believer's never quote -- not even Fred Phelps, Steven Anderson, or Doug Wilson. It's as though it had been removed from the Bible. But it hasn't.

Here is what it says:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Mr. Trumbull's interpretation is a bit weak, though. Leviticus 20:13 doesn't say: "To be gay = death." It says, "Kill homosexuals."

And not even Chris Trumbull is willing to say that.

It's time for believers to remove the verse that they cannot say out loud -- or just throw the whole damn Bible away.

Would the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act criminalize the preaching of Leviticus 20:13?

I think it would. Here's why.

Leviticus 20:13 reads as follows:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

This is, according to the Bible, a direct quote from God. It says simply this: "Male homosexual acts are an abomination. Anyone who performs such acts must be killed."

Or even more simply: "Kill Homosexuals."

If a pastor read Leviticus 20:13 and told his followers that they should do as God says in this verse, he or she would be advocating (and, therefore, aiding and abetting under Section 2, Title 18 of the U.S. code) a violent crime against homosexuals, which would be a criminal act under the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Of course, it's unlikely that any Christian minister would read Leviticus 20:13 in church. Even the most vile and virulent Bible believers are embarrassed by this verse, and no one, not even Steven Anderson, Fred Phelps, or Doug Wilson is crazy enough to tell followers to do what God clearly commands them all to do in Leviticus 20:13.

But a preacher that did that would not just be crazy, but also a criminal under the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

A couple years ago I mentioned the online debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens. Since then, they've been traveling around debating each other all across the country. And now now they're making a movie about it.

The movie is named Collision and it's set for release today, October 27.

In the online debate, Wilson evaded the topic (which was supposed to be "Is Christianity good for the world?") while forcing Hitchens to explain how an atheist determines what is good. So Hitchens was kept off balance trying to defend his own ethical system, rather than reveal the harm caused by the Bible and Christian belief. I expect Wilson to do the same in the movie version, which is why I am reposting his views here. It's only necessary to list Douglas Wilson's beliefs; once that is done, anyone with any morals will immediately conclude that such views are not good for the world.

Note: Since his views about slavery were made public several years ago in his (and my) hometown of Moscow, Idaho, Wilson has been quiet about his beliefs. I am not aware of any recent statements from him regarding the beliefs that are outlined below. All of the quoted articles are no longer available at the Credenda website. I was, however, able to restore the broken links through the marvel of the wayback machine.

Here is a list of the views of Douglas Wilson and his followers. (As found, but since removed, from the the Credenda Agenda website):

On Slavery

Wilson co-authored a pamphlet on slavery with the title, Southern Slavery as it was. (You can read it here.) Its purpose was to defend slavery as it existed in the pre-Civil War South and to defend the Biblical institution of slavery. When news of the booklet hit Moscow, Idaho in 2003, all hell broke loose. Wilson has since tried to hide his views on slavery through equivocation and denial.

Wilson brags in the article below that he has "said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner." He doesn't say that out loud anymore.

[N]othing is clearer – the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-4:1, and 1 Tim. 6:1-5.
. . .
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that we have said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this 'inflammatory' position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago.
. . .
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe? (1)

On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity

The entire legal system would depend on one book: the Bible.

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we could have it our way. The great revival we have been praying for has occurred, and every executive, legislator, and bureaucrat in the capital has just been saved. Knowing they ought to begin applying Scripture in their jobs, but not knowing how to go about it, they come to you and your church for advice. What will you tell them? How should they apply God's law?

Looking at the Bible with an eye toward applying it in the civil realm, several things become apparent. First, it is pretty small. … [O]n the average, a little over 1,000 pages. Think of the money governments will save on printing and shelf space!

If biblical law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be used.
. . .

Of course, there would be laws enforced against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality. (2)

The list of crimes punishable by death would be a long one, and would include witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents. Most people today would consider this cruel, but that's because they are guilty of the sin of pity. We should kill our family and friends, without pity, by stoning them to death if they believe in the wrong God. And we should cut off a woman's hand if she touches a man's private parts while defending her husband in a fight. And our eye must not pity her.

The civil magistrate is the minister of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:4). God has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office. The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16; 22:18; 22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).

In contemporary American jurisprudence, none of these offenses is punishable by death, with the occasional exception of murder. The magistrates have dispensed with God's standards of justice. Some Christians believe this is an improvement. They would be horrified to think that the "harsh" penalties of the law should still be applied. Sometimes this is the result of the mistaken belief that the Old Testament has no further application after the advent of Christ. This is an exegetical problem. Too often, it is the result of a sinful view of the criminal. This sin is called pity. … Why is pity a sin?

First, pity is not always a sin. But neither is it always good. … God included in the law specific prohibitions against the exercise of pity in meting out punishment.

If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,". . . you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him . . . (Deut. 13:6-9).

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out the hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. (Deut. 25:11, 12).

God commands the judge to evaluate the crime rather than the criminal. If the crime is one for which God requires death, then death must be the punishment. Your eye shall not pity. … Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an option where God has decided the matter. The magistrate, God's minister, is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's. (3)

On Crime and Punishment

The magistrate is God's minister of wrath against those who do evil. There would be only three punishments: death, lashing, and restitution. There would be no jails, prisons, or hospitals for the mentally ill.

Responsibility for the civil order is placed in the hands of magistrates, who act as God's ministers of wrath against those who do evil (Rom. 13:1-7).

God's law sets forth three basic punishments for crime: death, lashing (essentially, a government-sponsored spanking), and restitution. There is a conspicuous absence of county jails, state penitentiaries, reform schools, and hospitals for the criminally insane. The goal of the sentence is to execute God's wrath. . . . (4)

On Elected Officials

We are all currently ruled by God-hating tyrants. Only male Christians (belonging to Doug Wilson's church) should be allowed to hold public office.

If we have God-hating tyrants ruling over us (and we do), then we must recognize that they rule by our invitation.

First, our rulers are to be able men. ... The responsibility of civil, ecclesiastical and family leadership is given to men. … [I]t is an embarrassment and a reproach to the men to have women ruling a nation (Is. 3:12).

The men we choose are to fear God. The unregenerate do not fear God by definition (Rom. 3:18).

We are to choose men of truth. … A man who honestly believes erroneous doctrine may be sincere, but he is also deceived.

From this list of qualifications, it is apparent that, biblically, it is only professing Christians who are qualified to hold public office. (5)

On Disobedient Children

You can't just kill your son for being disobedient. You have to bring a son that is "worthy of death" before the elders of the church (Doug Wilson's church) and have them kill him for for you.

[A] father may (and must) discipline his son, but he may not exercise capital punishment against him on his own authority. Instead, he must bring a son worthy of death to the elders of the city, who are charged with applying the civil penalty (Prov. 13:24; Deut. 21:18-21). (6)

On Church and State

If the judge can't figure out what the proper biblical punishment should be for a crime, then the judge must take the case to the church (Doug Wilson's church). The church (Doug Wilson) will then decide what the Bible says the punishment must be and the judge "wields the sword." The ultimate authority for every matter is the church (you know who's church). Everyone must be a member of and submit to Doug Wilson's church.

God has established the magistrate for the purpose of executing His wrath, but He has not made the civil ruler the exclusive authority on the question of when wrath is appropriate. If a matter is too hard for the judges to determine with the knowledge at hand, then they are commanded to take the question to the church for clarification. The church decides, based on God's Word, what judgment should be carried out, and the judges are obliged to pronounce sentence accordingly.

The state wields the sword, and must wield it in submission to God's law. But if the law is not clear on a particular point, and the state has a question about what God's law requires, it is powerless to interpret Scripture on its own authority. Instead, the state must take the question to the church, which has been charged with protecting, interpreting, and teaching the law of God. The leaders of the church are instructed to make a judgment as to what the law requires, but the church does not thereby take up the sword. Rather, the judgment is passed back to the state, and the magistrates then wield the sword in a manner consistent with the judgment of the church.

[I]t is not enough that the civil government give Christianity a place at the table, even if it is the most honored place. … Nor is it sufficient that the magistrate render "personal submission to the spiritual government" of the church. While our rulers should be members of Christ’s covenant household … a Christian who is also an executive, legislator, or judge owes a duty of submission different than that of the ordinary layman.

On Non-Christians

All citizens would be required to to take oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship. "Reforming the State ... is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion." We should have the courage to punish heretics, apostates, blasphemers, swearers, sabbath-breakers properly. (They should all be killed.)

[T]he political leader is the head of the civil covenant. If that head acknowledges that his authority comes from God (as he should), is it enough that he honors God personally? … Or can he also require, for example, oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship? (Before you balk, keep in mind that we don't have any problem saying pledges of allegiance to mere flags or the nations for which they stand.)

Again, we have no problem making school children dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance, or requiring new citizens to swear oaths of loyalty to the U.S. government. Why can't they also be required to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God, and to "zealously renounce all heathen practices?" … Someone who is required to renounce Buddhism as a condition of citizenship is no longer trapped by a spiritual snare, and can't be a snare to anyone else. That is a blessing. Reforming the State is not about forcing people to be Christians. But it is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion. Historically, the civil magistrate has enforced laws against blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, swearing, and working on the Sabbath. The difficulty is not in defining or punishing these crimes; the difficulty is finding the strength and wisdom to do so.

On Environmentalists

All environmentalists are anti-Christian and all true Christians are anti-environment.

An environmentalist who seeks to "manage" the environment by letting it run wild is disobeying God's command to fill, subdue, and exercise dominion over the earth.

The consequences of environmentalist philosophy are disobedience to God in the short run…. Droughts and famines do not come upon a people who are obedient, but they are promised to those who disobey. An earth left to itself will only yield thorns, thistles, disease, and decay. If Christians are to be obedient to God's dominion mandate, they must oppose the rebellion inherent in environmentalist government policy. (11)

On Pluralism

There wouldn't be any. Everyone would be forced to belong to the One True Church (Doug Wilson's Church).

[T]he Christian magistrate acknowledges there is such a thing as a true church, and that he has a responsibility to nurture that church so that it thrives and to protect it against those things that threaten to do it harm. Obviously, this excludes the idea of pluralism. (12)

---

Sources: (All of the quotes are taken from the Credenda Agenda, which is the official publication of the church founded by Douglas Wilson.)

1. Douglas Wilson, Thema: So Why Are We Writing About This?, Volume 4, Issue 6

2. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: Know where to draw the line, Volume 3, Issue 11

3. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: Your Eye Shall Not Pity, Volume 3, Issue 9

4. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: On Crime and Punishment, Volume 4, Issue 7

5. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: On Elected Officials, Volume 5, Issue 3

6. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: On Disobedient Children, Volume 5, Issue 4

7. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: The Church as Advisor, Volume 5, Issue 4

8. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: Nursing Fathers Pt. 2, Volume 13, Issue 2

9. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: Leading in Righteousness, Volume 9, Issue 4

10. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: Nursing Fathers, Volume 12, Issue 3

11. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: On Environmentalists, Volume 3, Issue 5

12. Gregory Dickison, Magistralis: On Pluralism, Volume 13, Issue 2

The Christopher Hitchens / Douglas Wilson Debate

Somehow I missed the online debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson that took place in May at the Christianity Today website. ("Is Christianity Good for the World?")

I must say that I found it disappointing. Wilson was able to control the debate by avoiding the topic (which was supposed to be about the goodness of Christianity) while forcing Hitchens to explain how an atheist determines what is good. So Hitchens was kept off balance trying to defend his own ethical system, rather than reveal the harm caused by the Bible and Christian belief.

Although Wilson is an entertaining writer and a skilled debater, I am surprised that he was selected by Christianity Today to represent Christians, given his views on the goodness of slavery, the subjection of women, and the need to execute homosexuals, non-believers, disobedient children, etc. But times are changing. Christians are returning to the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible (which is why, at least in my opinion, there are fewer Christians each day).

It is a pity that Christopher Hitchens was unable to reveal Wilson's views in the debate. It is only necessary to list them; anyone with any morals will immediately conclude that such views are not good for the world.

Here is a list of the views of Douglas Wilson and his followers. (As found on the Credenda/Agenda website):

On Slavery

[N]othing is clearer – the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. See, for example, Eph. 6:5-9, Col. 3:22-4:1, and 1 Tim. 6:1-5.
. . .
The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that we have said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this 'inflammatory' position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago.
. . .
This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity (1, 2 )

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we could have it our way. The great revival we have been praying for has occurred, and every executive, legislator, and bureaucrat in the capital has just been saved. Knowing they ought to begin applying Scripture in their jobs, but not knowing how to go about it, they come to you and your church for advice. What will you tell them? How should they apply God's law?
....

Looking at the Bible with an eye toward applying it in the civil realm, several things become apparent. First, it is pretty small. … [O]n the average, a little over 1,000 pages. Think of the money governments will save on printing and shelf space!
....

If biblical law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be used. … Of course, there would be laws enforced against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality.

The civil magistrate is the minister of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:4). God has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office. The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16; 22:18; 22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).

In contemporary American jurisprudence, none of these offenses is punishable by death, with the occasional exception of murder. The magistrates have dispensed with God's standards of justice. Some Christians believe this is an improvement. They would be horrified to think that the "harsh" penalties of the law should still be applied. Sometimes this is the result of the mistaken belief that the Old Testament has no further application after the advent of Christ. This is an exegetical problem. Too often, it is the result of a sinful view of the criminal. This sin is called pity. … Why is pity a sin?

First, pity is not always a sin. But neither is it always good. … God included in the law specific prohibitions against the exercise of pity in meting out punishment.

If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,". . . you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him . . . (Deut. 13:6-9).

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out the hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. (Deut. 25:11, 12).

God commands the judge to evaluate the crime rather than the criminal. If the crime is one for which God requires death, then death must be the punishment. Your eye shall not pity. … Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an option where God has decided the matter. The magistrate, God's minister, is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's.

On Crime and Punishment

Responsibility for the civil order is placed in the hands of magistrates, who act as God's ministers of wrath against those who do evil (Rom. 13:1-7).

God's law sets forth three basic punishments for crime: death, lashing (essentially, a government-sponsored spanking), and restitution. There is a conspicuous absence of county jails, state penitentiaries, reform schools, and hospitals for the criminally insane. The goal of the sentence is to execute God's wrath….

On Elected Officials

If we have God-hating tyrants ruling over us (and we do), then we must recognize that they rule by our invitation.

First, our rulers are to be able men. … The responsibility of civil, ecclesiastical and family leadership is given to men. … [I]t is an embarrassment and a reproach to the men to have women ruling a nation (Is. 3:12).

The men we choose are to fear God. The unregenerate do not fear God by definition (Rom. 3:18).

We are to choose men of truth. … A man who honestly believes erroneous doctrine may be sincere, but he is also deceived.

From this list of qualifications, it is apparent that, biblically, it is only professing Christians who are qualified to hold public office.

On Disobedient Children

[A] father may (and must) discipline his son, but he may not exercise capital punishment against him on his own authority. Instead, he must bring a son worthy of death to the elders of the city, who are charged with applying the civil penalty (Prov. 13:24; Deut. 21:18-21).

On Church and State (1, 2 )

God has established the magistrate for the purpose of executing His wrath, but He has not made the civil ruler the exclusive authority on the question of when wrath is appropriate. If a matter is too hard for the judges to determine with the knowledge at hand, then they are commanded to take the question to the church for clarification. The church decides, based on God's Word, what judgment should be carried out, and the judges are obliged to pronounce sentence accordingly.

The state wields the sword, and must wield it in submission to God's law. But if the law is not clear on a particular point, and the state has a question about what God's law requires, it is powerless to interpret Scripture on its own authority. Instead, the state must take the question to the church, which has been charged with protecting, interpreting, and teaching the law of God. The leaders of the church are instructed to make a judgment as to what the law requires, but the church does not thereby take up the sword. Rather, the judgment is passed back to the state, and the magistrates then wield the sword in a manner consistent with the judgment of the church.

[I]t is not enough that the civil government give Christianity a place at the table, even if it is the most honored place. … Nor is it sufficient that the magistrate render "personal submission to the spiritual government" of the church. While our rulers should be members of Christ’s covenant household … a Christian who is also an executive, legislator, or judge owes a duty of submission different than that of the ordinary layman.

On Non-Christians (1, 2)

[T]he political leader is the head of the civil covenant. If that head acknowledges that his authority comes from God (as he should), is it enough that he honors God personally? … Or can he also require, for example, oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship? (Before you balk, keep in mind that we don't have any problem saying pledges of allegiance to mere flags or the nations for which they stand.)

Again, we have no problem making school children dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance, or requiring new citizens to swear oaths of loyalty to the U.S. government. Why can't they also be required to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God, and to "zealously renounce all heathen practices?" … Someone who is required to renounce Buddhism as a condition of citizenship is no longer trapped by a spiritual snare, and can't be a snare to anyone else. That is a blessing. Reforming the State is not about forcing people to be Christians. But it is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion. Historically, the civil magistrate has enforced laws against blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, swearing, and working on the Sabbath. The difficulty is not in defining or punishing these crimes; the difficulty is finding the strength and wisdom to do so.

On Environmentalists

An environmentalist who seeks to "manage" the environment by letting it run wild is disobeying God's command to fill, subdue, and exercise dominion over the earth.

The consequences of environmentalist philosophy are disobedience to God in the short run…. Droughts and famines do not come upon a people who are obedient, but they are promised to those who disobey. An earth left to itself will only yield thorns, thistles, disease, and decay. If Christians are to be obedient to God's dominion mandate, they must oppose the rebellion inherent in environmentalist government policy.

On Pluralism

[T]he Christian magistrate acknowledges there is such a thing as a true church, and that he has a responsibility to nurture that church so that it thrives and to protect it against those things that threaten to do it harm. Obviously, this excludes the idea of pluralism.

---

26 October 2009 Note: The articles quoted are no longer available at Doug Wilson's Credenda Agenda website. I wonder why. Is he embarrassed by them now that the film Collision is coming out?

In any case, I was able to restore the links via the wayback machine.