No, You Haven’t . . .

. . . heard from me a lot recently.  And there’s a reason — I just haven’t been feeling very well lately after a change in one of my medications.  It’s made me a bit irritable, which wouldn’t be any of your business, really, except that I don’t trust myself to write when I’m rather more in the flesh than in the Spirit.

Lord knows there are a lot of things to write about.  Doug Wilson’s blather of 2014 so far is his usual bluster and buffoonery, and as I’m forcing myself through his “Future Men” as part of my effort to attack not just the masculinist underpinnings of the Church, but masculinity itself, I know that I’ll be … greatly bothered… and I truly want to make sure that any of my criticisms come from content and not from my mood, from a Spirit-filled reaction and not a fleshly one.  And until I’m feeling better, I’m not going to risk offending the Lord.

Now, some of you may say that, in my describing Wilson and his work with words like “blather,” “bluster,” and “buffoonery,” I already have.  I disagree, and I’ll tell you why.

There is a criteria that I employ before saying things that could be considered inflammatory.  The first is the truthfulness of what I say — in this case, can Wilson fairly be described, on the basis of his words and actions, as a “buffoon.”  I’ve engaged with the man for nearly a dozen years; I’ve read outrageously ill-informed and offensive and constantly defended things from him that span not only that time, but years before — with no signs of abating, much less apology.  I find him rude, disingenuous, foolish, immature, and gleefully belligerent.  “Buffoon” works here.

But is it necessary?  I think it is.

Wilson commands enormous influence not just in Moscow but across the country, and especially in complementarian and Reformed circles.  The power and position he holds is utterly dangerous to the Church and to the unbelieving world around him, and in his destructive and divisive theology, he is not known for subtlety.  On the contrary, he advocates the use of sarcasm and nastiness as the “serrated edge” with which the believer ought to engage with the unbelievers around him.  When you oppose Wilson, something that doesn’t happen in Moscow, frankly, because the Church is impotent and the liberals silly, you have to go mano-a-mano.  He can take “buffoon,” what I intend with utter seriousness, as an insult from someone he has much knowledge of and little regard for, and the starkness of the comment is necessary to counter the starkness of the offense he’s created in the Church and out of it.

And that brings up another point:  Unlike Wilson, who gleefully wields his serrated edge against people inside the Body and outside of it, and does so with wild abandon and untempered malice, I will only ever go after those who identify as Christians.  With the exception of Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, who derive most of their support from people who call Christ Lord, I have never tangled with unbelievers.  Their evils are stark enough to merit the exception.  But I contain my criticisms to within the Church, because the indifference, immaturity, indefensible defense of indefensible oppression and inequality, and incomprehensible corruption of Jesus’ Gospel comes from within.  I’m called, as is Wilson, to engage with the “outside” world in love, truth, grace, and openness to correction.  Wilson engages with everyone, his fellow believers and those he believes to be outside of God’s favor — and, because he’s a hard Calvinist, we can assume that he rejoices that that number is presumed to be quite high –  in the same manner as a half-drunk, testosterone-filled, preeningly belligerent bully.

All things considered, “buffoon” represents quite a bit of restraint on my part.  I plan to continue it as long as he does — praying that he doesn’t.







Leave a Reply