Yes, No, and Maybe So

Doug Wilson demonstrates another masterful flourish of wordplay on “Blog and Mablog” today, raising the bar of rhetorical silliness ever higher with “pomosexuality,” which neatly describes the “post-modern” sexual decadence alluded to earlier by his “homo pomo in slowmo.”

You wondered if it could get any more clever; after all, the guy named his blog as a nod to the Biblical Gog and Magog, described in Scripture as the archetypical kingdom arrayed against God in the end times, and while the humorless among us would wonder how that could be an appropriate title for a prominent Christian pastor’s blog, the true cognoscenti, both of them, recognize it as a paragon of perspicacious punnery, and applaud.

But at the risk of sounding, well, too serious and all, I note something in the 30-plus comments following the “pomosexuality” post that concerns me. It seems that David Hodge, a conservative Orthodox Presbyterian in the South, suggests that the precipitating cause of our nation’s slide toward all-out sexual debauchery was the repeal decades ago of anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws, he says, made interracial marriage illegal and represented a Biblical framework of true, God-honoring sexual expression. Their repeal, which, horrifyingly enough to Mr. Hodge, came about partially through the efforts of Christians, opened the floodgates for sexual sin to engulf our nation . . .even seeping in under the solidly closed doors of the church. Later, the erudite Mr. Hodge opines that since God made separate races, he intended to keep the races separate, and judgment will come to those who mix what the Lord intended to keep apart.

I think by now it’s fairly clear that I think “Biblically illiterate,” “racist,” and “unloving” are the kindest things that can be said of Mr. Hodge and his theology. What’s not clear, however, is Wilson’s response to Hodge’s posts. Wilson asserts, clearly, that he can make a Biblical case against homosexuality, for example, in a few seconds, but making a Scriptural case for anti-miscegenation statues (or, more directly, in favor of “race mixing”) would take a few hours, plus some duct tape, pliers, mallets, etc.

Which means . . . ? Well, who cares. It’s just so damned funny.

Wilson, here as elsewhere, is too clever by half. This is a serious subject; Hodge’s implied challenge to Wilson is direct and could have been answered one of two ways:

“Yes, David, I think you’re absolutely right. The repeal of anti-miscegenation laws DID set our nation on a course of inevitable sexual debauchery that will only get worse.” Clear implication: Those laws were good. Race mixing is bad because it’s prohibited in Scripture.

Or,

“Why, David, that’s a terrible notion! Your disapproval of interracial marriage is un-Biblical and offensive. There is no sin in interracial marriage; I’m talking of the sins I mentioned earlier — homosexuality, bestiality, pedastery, pornography, etc.” Clear implication: Those laws were bad. Race mixing is not a sin, and is not prohibited in Scripture.

Scattered through the comments were some gems from the inimitable Chris Witmer, assuring his audience that if Scripture were truly followed, most marriages wouldn’t even have taken place and there’d be way fewer interracial ones, not because they’re sinful, but because most people don’t marry Biblically anyway, and besides if there were fewer interracial marriages, it’d be because everyone was following Scripture, which doesn’t, you know, necessarily preclude their legitimacy in the Church,
but . . . well, it went on for a bit, and begged for even further clarity — clarity that a wise pastor would immediately provide, no matter his views, seeing a provocative subject taking on a life of its own on his blog, from his own words.

But what a wise pastor would do, Wilson doesn’t. Instead of saying what he thinks about miscegenation laws, he bedazzles us with bull—t and leaves either side of the argument either wondering what the hell he’s saying, or assured that he’s saying it to echo their own views. “Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes,’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no,’” the Word says. “Keep ‘em guessing, make ‘em laugh, and avoid the issue” comes from Wilson’s own playbook.

And so I’m going to risk impertinence again and ask Wilson publicly, in light of his puckish evasiveness today, if he thinks anti-miscegenation laws were (a) Biblical, (b) if their repeal set us on a course of moral disaster, and, if he answers “yes” to either, then (c) how that squares with his earlier assurance to me that he had no problem at all with interracial marriages. (I suppose (d) would be, “On an important issue like this, why not just tell us what you believe and let us find our comedic needs met,say, by watching reruns of ‘Momma’s Family’?”)

So, there I go again, asking Wilson a tough question in public. I have his assurance that he has no problem with racially-mixed marriages; I just don’t have an assurance that when asked a question, he’ll respond with anything other than wit and wavering that, never charming, is really becoming a noxious mix of boorishness and wimpiness, with a salt-rimmed chaser of contemptible sarcasm. I do applaud some of Wilson’s commenters, though, for showing some backbone and denouncing Hodge’s conclusions. It seems not too much to ask their pastor to be as clear as they are.

(Any bets on how fast someone will appropriate “noxious mix” when speaking of me? Hey, it’s a freebie, NSA guys — you’re welcome).

2 Responses to “Yes, No, and Maybe So”

  1. You take it incorrectly. Keep reading.
    Keely

Leave a Reply