Like Rigatoni With A Cat Hair

Crecmemes.com is proving to be the “Criminal Minds” of my Internet experience — no matter what else I have going on, I drift back over to it to see if there’s something new that I haven’t seen before, to the detriment of swept floors, folded laundry, and thawed chicken.

But I find crecmemes to be not only funnier than I would have first expected, but a fascinating place to witness, and participate in, the back-and-forth between critics of Doug Wilson (the Meemers) and supporters (in this case, Seth).  And while I understand why they don’t use their names, I will be consistent and mention that I really wish they would.

Could, that is.

Because I know full well why they can’t.

I know that being a CREC member or an employee of Wilson’s or a student at NSA — which, astonishingly enough, is all the same thing, which makes my point for me — disallows you to question or criticize him.  At all.  To anyone.  Ever. Your disbelief in what I say can easily be corrected — just do it.  Just go up to someone after worship and mention a concern that you have over Federal Vision doctrine, or this semester’s reading list, or even the curious inconsistency in embracing Chesterton and Tolkien when he has stated that Roman Catholics have missed the ol’ salvation train.  Then wait just a little while for a visit from the elders, or wait a bit longer for the cold shoulder from people you thought were friends.  You’ll find yourself as frozen out as an abstinence lecturer at a Rolling Stones rehearsal.

I’ve been engaging with “Seth” on crecmemes regarding all of this, and, begging the patience and permission of the Meemers, here’s my latest challenge to him, and to anyone who feels the need to plug their ears, squinch their eyes closed, and continually repeat “He can’t be wrong, he can’t be wrong …”:

From my comment on crecmemes.com, with thanks to the proprietors:

Seth, I’m going to respond to this as one of Wilson’s original, charter Intoleristas — and, perhaps, the only one still “nipping at his heels,” as another commenter wrote, other than Rose Huskey. I’m proud to be part of his leftist/radical/egalitarian axis, and the only Trinitarian Intolerista in the bunch. I’ve debated Wilson (KRFP, 2007); you can ask around for how the debate went for him. I think it went not very well, and that only by the grace given me by my God. I followed the Biblical admonition to confront him in person first before going all egalitarian-leftist on his ass, although I believe the Scriptures also teach that public error demands public rebuke. I have engaged with him numerous times in public events, I don’t EVER use a pseudonym in writing about him on my blog, http://www.keelyprevailingwinds.com, and I say nothing about him, anywhere, that I wouldn’t say TO him, anywhere. And I know my stuff. All of which is to say that you are grossly mistaken, profoundly mislead, embarrassingly beholden to a narrative that has proved false over and over and over again and, it seems to me, inordinately desperate to defend a man who would spit you out like rigatoni with a cat hair if you ever publicly disagreed with him. Instead of wrenching yourself into pretzel-like positions trying to avoid understanding the obvious — that is, your pastor/mentor/employer/master is a sorry excuse for a pastor, a scholar, and a human being — why not take a breath and ask yourself a simple question: WHY? Why, in a town of a dozen Trinitarian evangelical churches, is Doug Wilson singled out for criticism? (My question is why, in said town, a menopausal homemaker, me, would be virtually alone in doing what Moscow’s brave, complementarian, male pastors seemingly can’t bring themselves to do, but I digress …). Why is it easier for Wilson and his defenders to cry “religious bigotry” when his primary critics share his (putatively) Christian faith? Why is it that when the reformed community finds itself in turmoil, the quickest way to understanding is to follow the stench and look toward Wilson, the CREC, and the Federal Vision, which even this Arminian sees is an utter rejection of Reformed theology? A brave person asks questions and deals with the answers, Seth. Are you a brave person, or a beholden one? (I use “person,” not “man,” because unlike Wilson, I don’t ascribe character traits to one’s sex, which is enough to spin me into his little Axis of persecutors). If you want to engage off-list, find me at siyocreo@live.com, or call me at 509-336-4841. But please, for the sake of your Spiritual health if not your salvation, start using the brain God gave you to analyze the work of a man He most certainly . . . didn’t give you.

 

Seth, I’m going to respond to this as one of Wilson’s original, charter Intoleristas — and, perhaps, the only one still “nipping at his heels,” as another commenter wrote, other than Rose Huskey. I’m proud to be part of his leftist/radical/egalitarian axis, and the only Trinitarian Intolerista in the bunch. I’ve debated Wilson (KRFP, 2007); you can ask around for how the debate went for him. I think it went not very well, and that only by the grace given me by my God. I followed the Biblical admonition to confront him in person first before going all egalitarian-leftist on his ass, although I believe the Scriptures also teach that public error demands public rebuke. I have engaged with him numerous times in public events, I don’t EVER use a pseudonym in writing about him on my blog, http://www.keelyprevailingwinds.com, and I say nothing about him, anywhere, that I wouldn’t say TO him, anywhere. And I know my stuff. All of which is to say that you are grossly mistaken, profoundly mislead, embarrassingly beholden to a narrative that has proved false over and over and over again and, it seems to me, inordinately desperate to defend a man who would spit you out like rigatoni with a cat hair if you ever publicly disagreed with him. Instead of wrenching yourself into pretzel-like positions trying to avoid understanding the obvious — that is, your pastor/mentor/employer/master is a sorry excuse for a pastor, a scholar, and a human being — why not take a breath and ask yourself a simple question: WHY? Why, in a town of a dozen Trinitarian evangelical churches, is Doug Wilson singled out for criticism? (My question is why, in said town, a menopausal homemaker, me, would be virtually alone in doing what Moscow’s brave, complementarian, male pastors seemingly can’t bring themselves to do, but I digress …). Why is it easier for Wilson and his defenders to cry “religious bigotry” when his primary critics share his (putatively) Christian faith? Why is it that when the reformed community finds itself in turmoil, the quickest way to understanding is to follow the stench and look toward Wilson, the CREC, and the Federal Vision, which even this Arminian sees is an utter rejection of Reformed theology? A brave person asks questions and deals with the answers, Seth. Are you a brave person, or a beholden one? (I use “person,” not “man,” because unlike Wilson, I don’t ascribe character traits to one’s sex, which is enough to spin me into his little Axis of persecutors). If you want to engage off-list, find me at siyocreo@live.com, or call me at 509-336-4841. But please, for the sake of your Spiritual health if not your salvation, start using the brain God gave you to analyze the work of a man He most certainly . . . didn’t give you.

Leave a Reply