Over here the titular leader of the CREC demonstrates that his feathers are a wee bit ruffled by accusing at least some of his detractors of being slanderers and idolaters;
Augustine, Priorities, Rightly Ordered Affections, and the Red Pilled Among Us
I spend a tad bit of space here responding to Doug’s most recent offering on the subject at hand.
The topic under discussion centers around a previous column that Doug wrote where Doug Wilson offered up this gem quite;
“I have far more in common with Nigerian Anglican women (NAW) who love Christ than I do with white conservative American men who don’t. The line is vertical, always vertical. We are Christians.”
Bret responds,
Doug Wilson now spends the lion’s share of this new column explaining that what he has in common with the NAW is spiritual and eschatological and not temporal and immediate with the result that we learn that Doug really does potentially have more in common with conservative American men then he does the NAW. Further we learn that we all should have known to begin with that Doug was far more intricate and precise in his thinking than he let on in his first column that created this dust up and that those who didn’t realize Doug’s intricate unspecified thinking are slanderers and idolaters.
Doug Wilson now clarifies the matter (somewhat),
“You have more in common with those who are in Christ than you do with those who are not. But you could easily share correct political sentiments with people who are unregenerate, just as a regenerate man and an unregenerate woman could both be red-heads.”
Bret responds,
Note what Doug is doing here. Doug is exchanging the word “different” for the word “more.” In order to be accurate the above should read;
“You have different realities in common with those who are in Christ than you do with those who are not and because of that you could easily share correct political sentiments with people who are unregenerate, just as a regenerate man and an unregenerate woman could both be red-heads.”
Do you see what a difference that makes. Wilson is going all “word-smithy” again in order to defend his linguistic shell game. We do not have more in common with the Nigerian Anglican Woman than we do the white conservative man though we certainly have different things in common. Further those different things we have in common are spiritual realities (salvation, a shared eschatological future, properly ordered loves) that don’t necessarily translate into “more in common” in this temporal life.
Now we conservative white American Christians rightly laugh at the left for not being able to define what a woman is but here we find the New York Times Evangelical Right (Doug Wilson) unable to properly use the words “common,” and “more.”
So, to be precise, we do not have more in common with Nigerian Anglican women than our white conservative neighbors but rather we have other things in common — heavenly things. Wilson’s idea of “more” is vague and confusing and one has to wonder if that is purposeful on Doug’s part. We have other things in common, eternal things, heavenly things, spiritual things, but “not “more in common.” Further, we may well have more transitory and immediate things in common with our white conservative unbelieving neighbors next door to us than we do with Nigerian Anglican women. It is necessary to distinguish here because it is precisely here on earth that concerns the issue that gave rise to the original question to begin with. I might have more temporal and immediate things in common with my unbelieving white Christian neighbors, so I should utilize my temporal, civil resources to further my neighbor’s interests more than those of the Nigerian Anglican women.
Doug Wilson writes,
“Who does the believing Ukrainian soldier have the most in common with? The answer is that he has the most in common with the believing Russian soldier, with whom he will spend eternity in glory—even if through an accident of war, they both wind sending one another into that glory.”
Bret responds,
Do these two hypothetical soldiers on the opposite sides of the war really have the most in common with one another or is it the case that they have DIFFERENT things in common that transcend the war?
Doug Wilson writes,
Doug writes
And herein is a portion of DW’s solution to the current problem;
Doug writes,
“Put another way, a virtuous Christian man can love Christ, his wife, his children, his nation, his region, his house, his dog, and his favorite coffee cup.”
Bret responds
Notice that Doug does not include “can love his race” in that list, and before someone pipes up that when Doug mention’s “race” above that could be included in the category of “nation” remember that we already know that Doug does not include the idea that nation is primarily those who descend from a common ancestor and we know this because Doug has said that there is only one race.
Doug Wilson writes,
“Say we have a truly regenerate Russian Christian soldier, who believes Putin’s lies, and a truly regenerate Ukrainian Christian soldier, who has an accurate understanding of the situation.”
Bret inquires,
I’m just curious why the truly regenerate Ukrainian Christian soldier can’t be described as one “who believes Zelensky’s and the West’s lies.”
Doug Wilson writes,
“If I and an unbeliever are trying to shoot my fellow believer across the way, what kind of sense does that make? Well, none, if the calculus being used is made up of carnal values only. It makes no sense if there is no such thing as rightly ordered loves.”
Bret responds,
