Me? I call it “no contest.”
But Douglas Wilson, in fending off criticism that he may have gone a wee bit far with his reference to intellectuals and peer-reviewed academic criticism as nothing more than “circle jerks” — which is a cringeworthily juvenile, puerile bit of dirty talk — claims that no greater moral luminary than Chesterton says that earthy epithets and such are sometimes necessary to make a point.
I think Chesterton’s fleshy countenance would drop if he heard that, because he undoubtedly was familiar, in ways that Wilson apparently isn’t, with the part of Ephesians 5 that doesn’t involve mistaken views of male hierarchy in marriage:
“Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place …” (Ephesians 5: 3,4)
Wilson, having avoided peer-reviewed scholarship all of his life, is free to criticize the results of it — but to wrongly co-opt Chesterton and miss the message of the Holy Spirit is something he’s not free to do without criticism. His puckish charm wears thin; his disregard for even reasonable standards of propriety is, regrettably, iron-clad.
It just might be time for Moscow’s most influential ministerial entrepreneur to leave childish things behind. In fact, such was the case when he was 11 and just learning what, exactly, a circle jerk really is. Sadly, most of the brave patriarchs I know of are pitifully imbued with a sense of humor that elevates boobs, poop, weenies and boners — and call it “pastoral,” just because it comes courtesy of their hale and hearty, bearded bellowing.