The Controversialist [Idaho pastor Doug Wilson is becoming a "mainstream evangelical"]

Christianity Today ^ | 4/17/2009 | Molly Worthen

[Alex Murphy]

Of all the spokesmen for godlessness to emerge during 2007, the "year of the atheist," Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most prominent. He is a prolific journalist and television pundit, selected by voters in Prospect magazine's 2008 poll as the #5 most important public intellectual. His 2007 treatise, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, continues to sell briskly, and he has built a sideline career debating any willing opponent from any church or creed, from Al Sharpton to Dinesh D'Souza. There is one man, however, who has sparred with Hitchens more than anyone: a relatively unknown Idaho pastor named Douglas Wilson.

In 2007, Wilson, 55, fired his first salvo against the celebrity atheists with Letter from a Christian Citizen, a short reply to Sam Harris's best-selling Letter to a Christian Nation. The tone was irenic, its arguments largely familiar to readers of C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. That spring, at the invitation of Christianity Today, Wilson wrangled with Hitchens in a six-part debate entitled "Is Christianity Good for the World?" on CT's website. American Vision published Wilson's side of the argument as God Is. How Christianity Explains Everything, as well as The Deluded Atheist, his response to Richard Dawkins.

In early 2008, Wilson's agent approached Hitchens to suggest a series of public debates at various East Coast locations, to be recorded by a professional film crew for a documentary, Collision, released this March. Between bouts of arguing over the morality of substitutionary atonement or the possibility of rational thought in a universe without God, the cameramen caught Hitchens in a revealing offstage moment. One asked him what he knew about Wilson. "He has a ministry on the Washington-Idaho border, I believe," Hitchens said. "I don't know of what Christian denomination he precisely describes himself

[Alex Murphy]

Who is this self-appointed defender of the faith? Until last year, those who had heard of Doug Wilson most likely knew him in his other roles: pastor provocateur in a liberal university town; polarizing leader in the classical Christian education movement; nonconforming Calvinist who has made so many enemies in Reformed circles that no denomination will have him....

...."We came [to Moscow, ID] because of our appreciation of this incredible school, and Doug Wilson. What Wilson preaches is closer to continental Presbyterianism than anything else I've seen in America," says Francis, an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America who runs a restaurant downtown.

Related threads:
Is Christianity Good for the World ? (The Doug Wilson-Christopher Hitchens debate)
Christopher Hitchens vs Doug Wilson
Christ the Lord of the Covenant
Thunder Puppies (How to prevent kids from leaving church)
They Will Look on the One They Have Pierced
A Millennium of Decline and Hope
The Great Tribulation: Mark 13

[Marie2]

“Christian Reconstructionism’s core is the application of every jot and tittle of Mosaic Law to modern Christian life,”

This is a constantly repeated lie, and since I’m of the Reconstructionist bent I’d just like to say, we don’t want every jot and title of Mosaic Law, we want every jot and tittle of the MORAL Mosaic laws.

Much of Mosaic law had to do with ceremonial cleansing, sacrifices, feast days (not mixing wool and linen, no shellfish, wearing four tassels on your robe) - all of which was abolished when Jesus rose again and the temple was destroyed.

Reconstructionist thought does NOT call for a return to any ceremonial law. We want the moral law - and in the civil realm, not just in the church. That’s where everybody gets upset.

[farmer18th]

Christianity Today working hard to remain mariginal.

[PAR35]

I think he’s CREC - I believe it’s where some of the Presbyterians end up when they have to leave the PCA for heresy.

[irishtenor]

Not quite. Peter Liethart is still a member of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, and I will probably meet with him next week. Peter is a professor at St. Andrew’s College, started by Wilson and his group.

People who are reformed in the northwest know about Doug Wilson, and many of them read his magazine, Credenda Agenda.

[Tax-chick]

Is this Doug Wilson the education guy, Veritas Press and all that?

[TheBattman]

From later in the article:

This from the University of Idaho...

[PAR35]

Yes, I know that the NPP/FV/Auburn Avenue theology is fairly widespread in the PCA presbytery up there. As far as which side of the line Liehard should be placed on, I’m not sure yet.

I used to read and enjoy Credenda Agenda as well, before Wilson’s theological problems became apparent.

The FVers in the PCA need to peacefully depart to the PCA, probably for CREC; the deaconess crowd needs to peacefully depart, probably to the EPC. Or the rest of us need to go to the OPC, and leave the FVers and the deaconess crowd to fight over what is left.

[irishtenor]

***Yes, I know that the NPP/FV/Auburn Avenue theology is fairly widespread in the PCA presbytery up there. ***

Actually, it isn’t. It has been roundly debunked. No one that I know of, including Peter, would subscribe to the Auburn Avenue theology. And I am part of the Presbytery, as a RE. I’ve been to the meetings, heard the arguments, and one of my fellow REs was fully involved.

I used to read C/A for quite a while, but quit for about the same reasons.

[Salman]

... We want the moral law - and in the civil realm, not just in the church. That’s where everybody gets upset.

You mean like stoning adulteresses?

[irishtenor]

A lot of people got stoned in the 60’s, not just adulteresses.

[Marie2]

Death penalty crimes would be murder, forcible kidnap (not parental), forcible rape (not statutory), adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft, bestiality, yep.

[Arthur McGowan]

That would explain why none of the Christian Reconstructionists I’ve met were loons.

[Salman]

Somewhere I get the idea that Jesus didn't approve of stoning adulteresses. That's why I used that example.

I'd as soon live in Iran as in a country ruled by people like you.

[Marie2]

Take a deep breath, there. An adulteress is not an innocent victim. We are not talking about women who are being raped or fooled or some such thing.

Jesus indeed did instruct those about to stone the adulteress to only cast the first stone unless they were without sin. We can't ignore that, any more than we can ignore His law.

What I take from the story you refer to is that the death penalty is not required in all cases. Circumstances must be considered. In this case, it is obvious that, although this woman was caught "in the very act," there was no man present. So for starters, the law was not being applied equally. Judges and juries would have to consider all this and more. I am not for vigilante justice, retroactive penalties, or abusing women so men can fart around.

Think for a moment about all the consequences of adultery. The insanely damaging effect it has on children. The actual crime and death that result from broken families. The casual use of other people that it promotes. I think there is a reason Jesus made it a death penalty crime right up there with murder, forcible rape, etc. It is devastating to people. It was God - and Jesus is part of that Trinity - who made these laws. Were the laws wrong? Unjust? Unenforceable? Or were they good and right?

[Alex Murphy]

Somewhere I get the idea that Jesus didn't approve of stoning adulteresses.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

- John 8:2-6a

Moses did not command anyone to "stone such women". Moses commanded them to "stone both adulterers!" What Jesus didn't approve of was the Pharisees letting half of the guilty party go free:

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife — with the wife of his neighbor — both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
- Leviticus 20:10

So ask yourself why didn't the Pharisees present both the man and the woman to Jesus? They were looking to catch Jesus in some act of false justice. Ask yourself why would the Pharisees hold two separate trials - asking Jesus to join in sentencing the woman to death, while keeping him out of the trial of the man who was caught in the act of adultery with her?

[Salman]

Your religion is evil and insane, and suppressing people like you is a legitimate function of government.

[Alex Murphy]

Your religion is evil and insane, and suppressing people like you is a legitimate function of government.

By what moral code do you proclaim Marie2's religion to be evil?

...suppressing people like you is a legitimate function of government.

What form of government would you advocate here? What role does religion (and which religion, if any) play in that form of government and it's legal code?

FWIW, that's an interesting profile page message you have there.

[Salman]

I advocate the form of government of the United States. Not a religious dictatorship by "Christian" Ayatollahs who favor death for infidels.

The message on my profile page is a negation of Islam.

[enat]

“Somewhere I get the idea that Jesus didn’t approve of stoning adulteresses.”

It wasn’t so much that He was against stoning the adulteress, he was just exposing the hypocrite corespondent in the crowd who wanted his sin covered up. She was caught in the act which means that the crowd knew who the paramour was and was concealing his participation.