Doug Wilson just preached a sermon on Sunday addressing the governor and legislature of Idaho regarding their duty in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.
You can read the full text of the sermon or watch/listen to the sermon here. And I would encourage you to do so.
Several thoughts in response:
1. Neither Pastor Wilson or myself are into political fire-eating frenzies. There are apocalyptic charades and crusades and chain emails going around trying to convince us all that some horrendous act of congress is just about ready to get passed that will require everyone to wear burlap underwear unless you call your senator now. And you can check most of them out on snopes and other helpful websites. At the same time, there really are times in which people ought to call their senators, really ought cry “fire!”, all of this while acknowledging that there is also the old ‘boy who cried wolf’ problem. A few people were really worked up about Y2K a few years back, and when they crawled out of their bomb shelters sometime after the new year, the world was carrying on just as it always had. But there is more than one way to read the story, and this leads me to the next point.
2. I actually think one of the most important points of the sermon was on the theme of courage. But what was so refreshing, so compelling, so glorious, so gut-wrenchingly convicting was the fact that in the first instance, courage was on display. And this isn’t some kind of good ole boy pat on the back or some kind of sick flattery. People who can’t see the courage displayed in the fact of a sermon like this being preached need to get their hearts checked. But we live in a time with such little actual courage that when it actually shows up in the flesh, it’s more offensive than anything to most of us. But that’s sort of the definition of courage: saying or doing that which is unpopular and full of risk all for the sake of what is right, for the sake of Jesus and His glory. Heroes only become heroes because lots of people thought they were wrong. You don’t exercise courage by playing it safe. This is why boys should be encouraged to play sports and war games. They will not grow up to take the right sorts of chances and know how to sacrifice their bodies for the sake of others if they do not practice when they are young and when the stakes are relatively low. But the same is true for grown ups and all men in particular: if you aren’t practicing courage in some areas now, in relatively low stakes areas, you won’t have any courage muscles to flex when the real moment of truth is staring you in the face. Courage is a virtue that must be kept at the ready: sharp, polished, and near. Courage is a virtue that must be practiced. This is why Jesus said woe to you if everyone likes all your Facebook and Twitter posts.
3. There is a huge difference between a unibomber wackjob who lives in an underground shelter in the middle of Montana and the wise and careful precautions of a Spirit filled child of God. But the same difference was in play but not as obvious when the desert dwelling grasshopper eater in a leather belt and camel skins took to yelling at first century kings and theologians in their robes and smartly donned suits and ties. In other words, uniforms and rhetoric are not enough to go on. John the Baptist started a political revolution that culminated in a Christendom that fully emerged, albeit in its infancy, 300 years later under the leadership of Constantine and Athanasius. But when John started hollering insults at the elites of his day, he looked and sounded more like a guy who might have been wearing one of those foil covered helmets and hoarding spam in his basement. The difference between right and wrong is always the difference between grace and sin, Spirit and flesh, God and the devil, Jesus and the all antichrist pretenders to His throne.
4. My personal opinion is that it is highly unlikely that God will use the governors of states to topple our Federal Idol. He might, and I would rejoice. But our God is the God of Hebrew midwives and old crazy men with walking sticks. God loves the weak and beggarly, God loves hobbits, God loves surprises. God loves to display His strength particularly in our weakness. While I believe it is the duty of Christians in every sphere of life to tell the truth, mock arrogant folly, and be faithful wherever God has placed them, and this includes asking our lesser magistrates to give tyrants the fig in the name of Jesus (as in this case), I fully expect that our reformation will burst out of something far more surprising: maybe a guilt ridden monk, maybe a grandmother with a godly bad attitude, maybe some teenagers on youtube. Of course at some point, if things get bad enough, governors may be the equivalent sorts of weaklings and maybe they already are, and so there is that. But let me be clear: this is only a passing thought and no real concern. As we lay siege to the gates of Hell, swinging our battering rams in faith, it doesn’t much matter where we crash through.
5. The central, take away point of the message is that Jesus is Lord and the Supreme Court is not, Congress is not, the President is not. And this means that whether someone has quibbles or questions about a particular reading of the constitution or the SCOTUS ruling, that hardly matters. The point really has almost nothing to do with the health care circus we find ourselves in. The point is that there is a God who created this universe, and He has spoken to us in intelligible words. He said such things as: You may not murder. You may not lie. You may not steal. You may not worship other gods. This God who has spoken is the God who rules over all things, and He has come to us in Jesus. Jesus is alive, and He is now Lord of heaven and earth. There are no other lords, no other gods, and there is no other salvation apart from Him. And so we could use thousands of more sermons just like this one. There are plenty of good idols to take a swing at in our day. Quibbling about whether this is the biggest idol or just a little squatty one in the courtyard of our nation’s pantheon is hardly helpful. Israel was commanded to tear down all the idols in Canaan, burn all the images, destroy all the shrines. If some Israelite got his knickers in a knot over the particular sledge hammer one of his brothers was using on the face of one of the Caananite fertility goddesses, that fussiness really only amounts to disobedience. You’re just getting in the way.
6. My prayer is that this sermon and thousands more like it go absolutely viral. We are a nation and church full of cowards. We are men afraid of the real sacrifice of leading a wife and loving little ones. We are afraid of confessing our sins and letting the blood of Jesus get into all the corners. We are afraid of being misunderstood, afraid of being misrepresented, afraid of being wrong, afraid of the trouble we will get in if we post a sermon like this on our facebook accounts, which is all to say that we are afraid of the cross of Jesus. And this is why we are a nation of heretics, we are mostly Mormons trying to be good, hoping for a good scifi ending to this bad grocery store novel. But Jesus didn’t die to prop up a bunch of corpses. Jesus didn’t get stapled naked to a tree in Palestine so we could toe dabble in His blood. Jesus didn’t die to leave us here. Jesus suffered, bled, and died with our nation, our families, our cities in mind. He knew their names. He knew our names. His blood was shed for our sorry land and all our sick, disgusting sin. And the good news is that we’re on the way down. This ship is sinking. And that’s good news because we serve the God of the sign of Jonah. We need to be born again, we need to die so we can live, we need to see our cowardice so we can cry out for courage.
Matthew N. Petersen says
Have you read Brad Littlejohn’s response? http://www.swordandploughshare.com/main-blog/2012/7/7/obamacare-in-perspective.html
I could agree that it’s bad policy (though I don’t think I’m very qualified to judge). But I find it really hard to think that suddenly the state has become an idol, and we have a duty to defy it. Surely the state can be idolized, as can the Constitution, and as can limited government. But it seems to be very much over reaching to claim that just because there is no articulated constitutional check on the power of taxation, the state has become an idol. Is there a constitutional check on Parliment’s power to tax? Was there a constitutional check on Charlemagne’s power to tax?
truzzi says
Isn’t Toby’s point that the state as been an idol for a long while now and it’s about time some preachers came up swinging? Hence the call for more?
Matthew N. Petersen says
If I read it correctly, the point is not that the state is made into an idol, but that by failing to articulate a limit to the power totax,the state has claimed idolatrous power, and must be stopped in precisely this respect.
I agree people idolize the state, but I disagree 1) that this particular act is a claim of idolatrous power 2) that standing up against this law is an effictive way to combat the general idolatry and 3) that we are authorized to speak for the Church on this issue.
Matthew N. Petersen says
I also find it hard to see how the governors (and legislatures) of states have a duty before God to perform an illegal action that they do not have financial muscle to back up in order to over turn a law has been upheld by a Supreme Court decision which does not articulate a bound to the power to tax.
Brad Littlejohn says
Thanks for the plug, Matt. I should clarify, however, that my article was not written as a response to this sermon per se, given that it had not yet even been preached (I make no pretensions to clairvoyance). But the concerns I expressed in that essay certainly apply to the sermon; indeed, all the more so as a sermon has a status as an official proclamation of the Church’s teaching, which I think is completely unwarranted on something like this. Toby’s fourth point actually points to the problem: if the central point is about some specific matter of policy, but the principle that Jesus is Lord, not Congress, not the Supreme Court, etc., then we must be very wary of making some specific policy the line in the sand that determines when Congress has claimed to be Jesus. I fully endorse the general contention that our government makes idolatrous pretensions, and Christians have a duty to point that out. But we lose our standing and credibility to make that accusation when we hastily identify particular policies that we disagree with as constitutive of that idolatry and rebellion—indeed, perhaps even worse, we anathematize millions of Christians who happen to disagree with us in good conscience on the political issue.
Curiously, Wilson himself emphasized this concern a few years ago, when it was people arguing that, say, the invasion of Iraq was proof of our nation’s rebellion against God (although I think that accusation has a lot more prima facie merit than saying Obamacare proves our nation’s rebellion against God). Back then, his emphasis was all on the Christian citizen’s duty to defer to the judgment of his superiors on doubtful questions of policy. Why the about-face?
Matthew N. Petersen says
I’m not sure that it’s an about face. Both Wilson brothers (Evan and Doug) have a tendency to speak dogmatically beyond their knowledge. Thus, for instance, as long as I have been alive, both have rejected the Theory of Relativity as false. It seems that speaking on areas beyond their competence with absolute assurance is an elder Wilson brother (not necessarily Doug) blind spot. (Similarly on other issues, for both of them.) There is much to respect about both Wilsons, but I think we would do well to be aware of this blind-spot, and not follow them too closely when they speak dogmatically outside their areas of expertise.
Douglas Wilson says
Hi, Matt. Let me point out that a distinction can and should be made between speaking “beyond one’s knowledge” and speaking “contrary to the current consensus.” I know that I have blind spots, but I also know that having the crowd lead me to them has not led to many spiritual breakthroughs thus far.
Matthew N. Petersen says
I suppose I would say that speaking contrary to the current consensus is one of your virtues. Which means that speaking beyond your knowledge, and thinking its speaking against the current consensus is somethong we (including, not excluding you) should be on guard against.
Brad Littlejohn says
Oops—correction: above, where I said, “Toby’s fourth point actually points to the problem” I meant the fifth point, of course.
While I’m at it, let me elaborate and engage head-on with this fifth point.
Your whole point in this post, Toby, is to tell us that “It’s not about healthcare. It’s about idolatry.” Ok, fine. I agree that idolatry is the problem. If that’s the case, then, wouldn’t we want to do all in our power to make sure that the governor and legislature of Idaho, and the blogosphere, and CREC pastors all over the country who buckling on their armor and taking up their vorpal swords, get that message? Which means we need sermons like this, sure, but preached on sundry occasions—perhaps as the biblical text for the day demands it—not simply upon the upholding of a piece of legislation that the pastor disagrees with. Wilson’s sermon was calculated to blur the very distinction you are making here. His goal was to say, “It is about healthcare, and that’s why it’s also about idolatry.”
Now, your fifth point seems to be trying to say that this doesn’t really matter. There’s no reason to quibble over whether it was the best moment or line of attack, because we need to be attacking on all fronts anyway, and any attack is better than no attack. Sounds like the philosophy of the British generals at the Somme. On the contrary, the more important the attack, the higher the stakes in the battle, the more important that our missiles be well-aimed, instead of simply peppered all over the place like birdshot. Partly this is an issue of the minister’s duty before God. The minister is bound to teach only what God’s word clearly teaches, not to take a swing at everything he thinks might be an idol and hope that he happens to hit a few real ones. But it’s also an issue of credibility. How is the world supposed to hear and listen to the message, “Jesus is Lord, not America” when the message is delivered in a form like this? Instead, all it’s going to hear is “I’m really pissed off about Obamacare,” which coming from a pastor in the backwoods of Idaho, won’t surprise it that much.
Toby says
Thanks for the interaction, Brad.
A few thoughts in reply:
1. On your first comment: I don’t think you have to agree that this particular ruling is a “line in the sand.” This is just another instance of our overreaching, messed up government whose fundamental problem is denying the authority of Jesus over our public policy. And as you note, there are piles of opportunities for sermons like this pointed at other events, decisions, etc. The advantage of using this particular moment is that everyone is watching, everyone is talking about it.
2. To your second comment: I would return to my point in my post about courage. I think Wilson is fully aware of both of your concerns (that everyone will think this is just a political maneuver & Obamacare just pisses him off), but he chose to preach the sermon anyway. I think he actually addresses these concerns in his sermon, but he knew the accusations would still come. He knew he could/would be misunderstood. Again, that’s part of the glory of it.
3. Your concern about credibility applies to John the Baptist and Ezekiel and piles of other prophets. And at the same time, there are sectarian crazies out there. So there we are. If you speak out against folly, you’ll be thought a crazy. But God never starts reformations at tea parties in calm, hushed tones. There’s never a few rounds of civil discourse followed by a resolution and hand shakes. It just doesn’t happen that way. It’s always raucous, always explosive, always traumatic, and of course, there are plenty of evil men who come along and act raucously and then claim to be like the prophets too. And so there we are again, at the mercy of God’s kindness, seeking Jesus, seeking to walk in the Spirit.
Cheers,
Toby
Matthew N. Petersen says
But the problem with 1) is that it isn’t clearly so. I know Christians who would say the government has the duty to provide healthcare. Are we willing to say that they are heretical and idolatrous for saying that? I would tend to say that in his deaconal office, a godly Christian magistrate would help provide health-care, while coordinating with he deacons of the Church. If that is so, the problem is not so much that the government is attempting to provide health care, nor that the government is levying a tax to provide health care, but that the government seeks to provide health care on its own authority, and not in its authority as a deacon in the Church. You could disagree with that position, and it really doesn’t bother me. But am I idolatrous for believing it??? If not, we over-reach when we criticize the health-care as idolatrous for taxing us. It isn’t the taxation per se that is idolatrous. You can have policy disagreements with he taxation, but it sin’t the taxation itself which is idolatrous. You disagree as a Republican, not a Christian. And so when you make it a fundamental issue, your testimony on the truly important matter is compromised. It sounds like you’re just a conservative objecting to a Democrat President–and in many ways, you are.
(And I would submit you should check to make sure your System II isn’t validating a decision your System I made based on being a Republican System I.)
Brad Littlejohn says
Thanks Toby.
1) Such an interpretation (“well, it just seemed like a convenient time to make this general point, since people were talking about it”) seems to strain credulity, given that I don’t recall Wilson ever preaching a sermon remotely like this before (though maybe I’m forgetting). In any case, I don’t think that the text of the sermon will bear out such a charitable interpretation. At at least four points, Wilson suggests that this particular decision constitutes a decisive new departure that, so the syllogism goes, constitutes a claim to absolute government:
“The heart of the problem is that the Supreme Court has now in effect declared that there is no limiting principle in our form of government at the federal level.”
” The problem we are facing is not because of a stupid law. Of course Congress will pass stupid laws from time to time. The problem is the claimed prerogative to a stupidity without limit. We can bear with stupidity from time to time. It is the claim to omnipotent stupidity that has awakened our concern.”
“The Constitution as written is a document of enumerated powers, and this decision formalizes the final inversion of that—anything not mentioned in the Constitution as being the province of Congress can now be added ad libitum by that same Congress, provided they are willing to be coercive about it in and through their powers of taxation.”
“this Court decision excluded, by definition, any limiting principle to the power of congressional taxation. That is messianic and delusional.”
Now, at one point he does concede the objection that a lot of this is old news:
“This is actually true with regard to substance, but not with regard to the clarity, visibility, and high-handedness of this issue. . . . But this monstrosity was done on the fifty yard line during half time at the Super Bowl, and everybody saw it.”
Of course, I think such a concession, if genuinely made, seriously disrupts the coherence of his argument. If in substance, our law has already come to recognize that there is no “functional limit” to the power of congressional taxation, then this means that this decision was simply a matter of good conservative respect for judicial precedent and that if we have a problem with the Constitutional interpretation, well, we’ll need to take it up with a bunch of dead guys. In such a case, it cannot but seem arbitrary and a tad hysterical to call for “resistance” and “nullification.” In any case, Wilson is at the very least still making the claim that this decision is unique in that no one can any longer legitimately dispute that the claim to power without limit has been made.
And this is what troubles me most. “Now it’s so obvious you can’t argue with me,” he says, which just feels like bullying. On the contrary, I would argue. Have you actually read the Roberts decision? At every point in his argument, he backs up his interpretive decisions with impeccable legal precedents, and is adamant throughout that federal power *is* limited, and must continue to be limited, by the Constitution as interpreted by the best legal precedents. A very conservative posture, in fact. And he also points out that the Constitution is in fact not very restrictive at all on the government’s taxation powers, which are considerable.
2) “Courage” only works as a defense if the argument was otherwise valid and called-for, which is precisely the question at issue. The British at the Somme couldn’t excuse themselves on the basis that at least they were courageous.
3) You have made this same argument repeatedly with regard to the tweeting issue, and I’m afraid it isn’t making any more sense to me now than it did then. “If you speak out against folly, people will think you’re crazy anyway, so no need to trouble yourself too much to make sure you’re *not* actually being crazy, to make sure that you are actually saying something valid.” One might just as easily say, “People are going to accuse Christians of being hypocrites no matter what. So we really shouldn’t worry whether we actually are being hypocrites or not.” Or, “No matter how charitable you are, the world is going to see you as being judgmental, so it doesn’t really matter if you’re being charitable.” Of course, you would say this isn’t what you’re saying. But when I raise the objection that Wilson’s sermon appears to be unbalanced and delusional, and you defend it on the basis that, “Well, how many people are going to be able to distinguish between delusional and God-sent anyway? so don’t worry about it” I’m not sure how else to construe it.
Just because God’s prophets will always, perhaps especially when they are actually speaking His words, look like sectarian crazies, this does NOT give any would-be prophets a free pass from making sure that they are actually speaking God’s words. No, our job is always to be as lucid, rational, biblically rooted, clear-sighted in our diagnosis of our present circumstances, and accurate in the judgments we form as possible. And if people challenge us on the basis that what we’re saying doesn’t seem accurate, lucid, and rational, we can’t just say, “Well, I’m being a prophet; you couldn’t be expected to understand.”
John Wright says
Lots of interesting points in this thread. But the point of it all??
Because of this thread I listened to Wilson’s sermon just moments ago (on July 15th). After listening, this mini-thread reminds me of a harmless but otherwise scruffy little dog making some noise defending what he perceives as his domain when the postman brings the mail. On one hand, fair enough. However, this is absolutely not even remotely the first time Wilson has has brought the Biblical mail, and Brad’s “maybe I’m forgetting” line is indicative that this is not about the mail at all.
This is about the mail carrier. Don’t hide behind iron sharpening iron and all that. This thread is not that. No, this is also absolutely not the first time Brad is barking at the postman.
If I believed (which I don’t) that you were speaking in love I might not perceive you as barking and nipping at Wilson’s heals. The protracted nature of this barking (over years) is more than wearying, ahem.
If you have a problem with Wilson, then in love go speak with him, and maybe deal with that plank which is in your eye, and then perhaps tend to some restorative efforts — before this lack-of-relationship gets out of hand and becomes a nastier development. I implore you. The Church will be better for it.
Scripture talks about not allowing a root of bitterness to develop. The process of having such roots removed by Heavenly hands is unpleasant to say the least.
Brad Littlejohn says
John,
As for “speaking in love,” do you think that publicly making unfounded accusations in which you claim to have access to my inner motives meets that description?
I’m afraid I do not know who you are, but you claim to know me quite well indeed; though I’m not sure where you’re getting these claims from.
If you’d paid attention to this thread, you would have noted that in fact I did not even attempt to “bark at” Wilson with regard to this matter initially. My post was written before he preached his sermon, and made no reference to him. (I did have certain remarks he’d recently blogged in mind as I wrote, but was very careful to keep my remarks general, so as to avoid any unnecessary contentiousness.) When Matt shared my article as a response to Wilson’s sermon, I thought I should jump in here to clarify, and, since I had not written anything in response to the sermon, clarify what my response might be. In fact, to the extent that I have found it necessary to critique Wilson in regard to this sermon, I have run all of my postings by a friend who is particularly appreciative of Wilson first, in order to make sure there was no possible cause for offence.
As for “protracted barking over several years,” I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If you look through my blog archives, you will find that over the past two years, I have mentioned Wilson in blog posts only six times, from what I can find—three of them positive mentions, three negative. Given Wilson’s prominence in our circles, the overlap of the issues on which he speaks to my areas of interest, and his “take no prisoners” approach to many issues, I think you should agree that that’s actually remarkably infrequent. Before that, on my old blog, which was aimed at a somewhat smaller and more local audience, I engaged Wilson a bit more often, but primarily just to interact with his high-profile critiques of Oliver O’Donovan, my supervisor, and N.T. Wright.
Finally, you suggest that maybe I should communicate directly with Wilson when I’ve had concerns; in fact, I have regularly done so, and we have had several lengthy and very cordial interactions, both by email and in person, to discuss them.
You should take care to distinguish between personal attacks (which I have certainly not been making) and critiquing public statements, to which I have confined myself. If I had to be guilty of “a root of bitterness” in order to express concerns and disagreement with someone’s public statements on matters of theology and/or politics, then I would have to abandon the calling of Christian scholarship altogether. Even if turned out that Wilson were right and I was wrong, my raising objections could prove helpful in clarifying the issues at stake. So I felt that it was important to do so, especially since the consciences of many were likely unsettled by Wilson’s sermon. But that in no way implies bitterness, lack of love, or even lack of respect for Wilson.
Matthew N. Petersen says
I also wonder why this sermon takes courage. Is anyone in his immediate circle likely to disagree, or they most likely to find it compelling? And is anyone who is really strongly opposed likely to do anything about it? You make it sound like Pr. Wilson is preaching a sermon that is likely to get him killed, not a sermon that’s likely to be shared a thousand times on facebook, as everyone who hears it sings its praises. I feel like praising this sermon as courageous is like the liberal minister in The Great Divorce praising his denunciation of the Incarnation as courageous.
Jeremy Downey says
Misunderstanding and being misunderstood are two things I would not generally accuse Mr. Wilson of being mildly concerned about, much less fearing. Indeed, I find it difficult to read these attributions of “courage” and “glory” without detecting a light seasoning of sycophancy. But it may simply be cultural.
John Wright says
Brad,
The simple point of my public response to your very public behavior pertaining to Wilson: As a Christian brother I don’t see the Christian love in your comments about Wilson. There might be elements of critique embedded within your thoughts, but the spirit of your writing about Wilson is NOT critiquing. You “knowing me” is not a prequisite for me to be impacted by the spirit in which you write.
For example: “Delusional” is a curious conclusion for one who isn’t bitter. I’ll venture an estimate that I’ve listened to at least 95% of Wilson’s sermons over the last three years and not once, never, ever, have I ever considered invoking such a foolish and youthful choice of words to Wilson or his sermons. “Delusional” — this is love?
I missed the memo wherein you appointed yourself the important physician to the masses “especially since the consciences of many were likely unsettled by Wilson’s sermon.” Which survey might you be relying upon to justify this self-appointment?
As you mature in your Christian scholarship (which I sincerely envy), you might apprehend that the results of attempting to publicly assuage our weak, unsettled consciences with an empty, clanging gong might not be the results you’re looking for — if you persist in this hobby.
Finally, please don’t take umbrage, resist the urge to deflect,
and don’t obfuscate. My brother, take a chill pill then show me the love. Your ecclesiastical self-perception never trumps Biblical obedience.