fbpx

Wilson’s Response

Today we continue our second round responses in our Christ and Culture series. Doug Wilson responds to the comments made by Darryl Hart, Nelson Kloosterman and Bill Dennison in the first round.

Participants:


Christ the Center focuses on Reformed Christian theology. In each episode a group of informed panelists discusses important issues in order to encourage critical thinking and a better understanding of Reformed doctrine with a view toward godly living. Browse more episodes from this program or subscribe to the podcast feed.

Leave a Reply to Melissa Tamminga Cancel reply


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Chris

9 years ago

Wilson sure confuses a sharp tongue with a sharp mind.

Just out of curiosity, Camden, why did you invite Doug Wilson? If you were looking for a theonomic perspective, why not invite one of the fine specimens in true churches?

Jim Cassidy

9 years ago

Hi Chris,

I agree with your sentiments about Wilson’s approach. As to why we picked him, it may arguably stated that Wilson is the most articulate and well known defenders of his position. We wanted to present the audience with the best out there for each position represented. With all of Wilson’s faults (and they are significant) remains the most articulate exponent of his position. For that reason, we believe his selection was warranted.

Benjamin P. Glaser

9 years ago

Last I checked Doug Wilson is not a Theonomist.

Here is a blog post of Wilson’s from 2006 where he says point blank that he is not a Theonomist.

http://tinyurl.com/22n4qye

Melissa Tamminga

9 years ago

Did anyone else find Rev. Wilson’s response rather oblique? While Dr. Dennison re-articulated and then responded to particular statements/ideas from the others, Wilson’s response lacked that kind of specificity. It seemed, Camden, that you had to keep prompting him – eg. “what did you think about ___” and even then, Rev. Wilson did not seem to respond directly to a particular point or a particular person – except when he said he found Dr. Hart’s view on politics to be personal rather than Christian (an unfairly dismissive way of dealing with Dr. Hart’s position, I thought). I found it quite frustrating to listen to; he did not seem to respond, for the most part, as if he was in a direct conversation or a debate with others.

I also wanted Rev. Wilson to say more about the vocation issue, especially in terms of how there might be an especially Christian way of doing something like car mechanics or groundskeeping or brain surgery. He used an architect as an example, but since architecture can be linked to aesthetics and thus to world view (so that there might be a distinctly “Christian” architecture – though I don’t really buy that completely either), his example did not work for me at all. For example, describing “Christian” janitorial work – if Rev. Wilson wants to say that Christian janitorial work encompasses more than just the Christian janitor’s personal view of that work – would be much more difficult.

In spite of my frustrations with this segment though, this has been a fantastic series – thanks for doing it and I’m looking forward to the next two responses.

Chris E

9 years ago

A point or two about Rev. Wilson’s comments on the vocation issue. I was struck by some of the same things Melissa eludes to above. I felt the architecture example didn’t necessarily clarify things.

In fact, it occurs to me that one reading of his comments would render him more charismatic than the charismatics – he seems to be saying that the reasons that we can’t conceive of ‘christian car mechanics’ or ‘christian architecture’ is essentially because Christian understanding hasn’t progressed that far – in which case he seems to posit a continuing stream of fresh revelation that have a redemptive purpose.

reformed-forum-logo-white400

Contact

Reformed Forum
115 Commerce Dr., Suite E
Grayslake, IL 60030

+1 847.986.6140
mail@reformedforum.org

Copyright © 2019 Reformed Forum