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.

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.

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

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.

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?