Introduction
A few months ago, I met with friends for beers and some back and forth about eschatology over beers. We met at a brewery called Verboten, German for “forbidden”, which I thought appropriate because eschatology is often considered such, as it tends to be divisive and avoided on Sunday mornings. Three-fourths of the orthodox eschatological positions were represented among the four of us, so there were many avenues to explore and questions to be asked. It was fun. I would even go so far as to say it was swell.
Several weeks later, one friend sent a follow-up email to the three of us thanking us for the discussion and attached a document from a pastor (don’t remember from where) challenging postmillennialism and making some tart observations about another pastor Douglas Wilson, a fellow postmil, and whom I have read a great deal of.
Because I am a last-word freak, I responded to the document and some of the presuppositions buried within. I did this because I think the conversation of eschatology is misplaced, and eschatology itself is often seen as an after-market modification one can add to their car without changing the engine performance. However, I think it is a much more central part of our belief system and is buried in the engine block among the controlled explosions and twirling crankshaft.
Here is the link to the article mentioned, which is several pages long. I reference it a lot so if you only read below you will hear one side of the conversation. But do what you please. I’m not the boss of you.
My Response
Gentlemen,
Good to hear from you and thanks for the article and for continuing the conversation. This has been a particularly difficult season for my family, mostly for me, and I haven’t thought much about this topic since our meeting, though the article did open the hatch on all the boiling mash that has been brewing. I don’t know if you were expecting a lengthy response, but I’m at work and ain’t busy so that’s what you’re gonna get.
Not surprisingly, I had some issues with the paper. My intention isn’t to defend Wilson here like he is the captain of my dodgeball team or anything, but only as it reveals the presumptions of its author, Pastor Chris Gordon. After reading it I realized I had some rather…spirited reactions, some of which I will bottle below. But the gas in my blow torch (an appropriate metaphor given we are talking about Doug Wilson) is not to peddle this or that theological position, but to see Jesus Christ king over all the Bible says is his kingdom. I want Jesus for me, and I want Jesus for the world, and I want him in every possible way he means to be had. I have a particular view of how this will happen, which you are aware of, and these thoughts are coming from that perspective, as will be abundantly clear. So here goes.
I have found Wilson helpful on many issues and generally agree with his perspective. He is spicy guacamole, which I have a taste for, and his verbal exploits are mentioned by Gordon and many of his critics. Wilson defends himself well and I am convinced his defense is solid and biblical. Clearly, others disagree, but I think the “tone” is actually a case in point for the larger issues people have with him. His blog slogan is “Theology that bites back” and this is too toothy for some while toothsome for others. In addition, Gordon cites several “controversial” issues about Wilson such as ex opere, federal vision, sola fide, etc. I don’t know how much of Wilson’s views and responses to these accusations/views you have read. I have and at length. And so it strikes me as ignorant for Gordon to conclude some things he does. Wilson has responded very clearly and poignantly to these, and the fact that Gordon still holds that Wilson “redefines faith”, for example, when he has expressly and repeatedly affirms sola fide, doesn’t do much for his credibility, and perhaps indicates that he is more interested in the sound of one hand clapping, or writing about others’ experiences of what they heard one time when they heard the sound of one hand clapping, rather than a willingness to hear the other hand.
Wilson has responded to all his detractors, like DeYoung and others, who have spoken against the “Moscow Mood”, and invited them all out to Moscow for open dialogue, or to meet wherever they want. At this time all have refused. In my opinion, there is a lot of drive-by ministry critiquing going on without the willingness to sit down and hash things out. DeYoung even said at the beginning of his critique that he didn’t want to start a big thing. But that really isn’t fair. Can’t give someone a wedgie and then say you don’t feel like horseplay. Wilson is challenging certain systems, yes, and I think we can all agree that there is at least part of the American church that is a trellis of tradition that hasn’t seen a growing vine in a while. His writings target the anemic church as much, if not more, than the cultural rot.
Christianity in America is like an incumbent public school system. Some schools are doing great, others have lowered their standards, and still others have great teachers with crummy administrators at the helm. Generally, however, the same things are being taught the same ways regardless of the dropping test scores and high rates of teen pregnancy. Then you have a tiny charter school with an avante-garde headmaster that is churning out some impressive results, and the general response of the school system has been to crap on the methods. But it is hard to argue with the doctors and lawyers the school is graduating. When parents flood the admissions office to get their kids on the roster, the superintendents of the public system scratch their heads, write their missives, and sanction their inquiries.
But what should at least be part of the conversation is to ask if their current lame approach to education is wrong-footed and needs a school board review in a bad way. Maybe this charter school is on to something. It is possible. And the unwillingness of the administrators to sit down and talk pedagogy with the charter school headmaster smacks more of threatened systems than the open and honest search for a true and better education.
Perhaps Gordon’s most obvious blind spot, and I would say this is the most frequent blind spot I encounter, is how much of the underlying conversation is about eschatology. There is a real risk of talking past each other because of this. Gordon names Wilson’s mistake as “a classic case of postmillennial optimism taking over the defined mission of the church as dictated by our present challenges.” He presumes Wilson is not seeing things clearly, but is doing so from his own eschatological platform, not evaluating Wilson’s based on its own merits. It’s like a man pointing at another man’s submarine and observing that the real problem with that guy’s boat is that it travels underwater. The difference in form is not a bug but a feature. Is it possible that Gordon’s mistake is “a classic case of premillennial defeatism taking over the defined mission of the church?” Can we at least acknowledge that this is just as legit a possibility as Gordn’s indictment?
As another example, Gordon shows the position he comes from when he says, “But I’m asking if the saving of Christendom is our appointed task in our brief stay here?” Brief stay. There is a clear assumption in the timeline of his eschatology that obviates any real action like Wilson espouses. And that makes sense if you come from Gordon’s position, which he makes clear. According to Gordon’s beliefs, there is no point in the gospel reaching the political sphere, because we aren’t going to be around here that long. I’m assuming “brief” carries the same burden of time for him as Revelation’s “soon” does, and the presiding American eschatology has certainly milked that teat dry. The “soon-ness” of the apocalypse and our brevity in this world has been used as an excuse to avoid cultural incursions for long enough that, if we had understood the word for what it intends, we would have actually engaged in culture many times over by now. Don’t bother fixing the drywall, the house is condemned. It has been so for a very long time, long enough that we could have replaced all the walls with cedar shiplap by now. But there I go evaluating through my eschatological position!
Anyway, the function of postmillennialism follows its form, as does every other eschatological position. I can’t stress how much this is overlooked and how much this leads to so many directionless conversations.
I think the other underlying issue of the whole conversation is to ask who is seeing the problem accurately? Does America really have stage IV metastatic colon cancer? If the answer is yes, which I think it is, then there are a couple of options. We can sign our DNR and prepare ourselves for the end, get our house in order, and set our minds on dying with dignity. We can continue treating symptoms like we have been, with salves and over-the-counter remedies. Or we can use aggressive gospel chemotherapy, which is what I would say Wilson is leading in. And when I say “aggressive” of course, I do not mean physical aggression.
Gordon observes that Wilson and his warriors have a certain flair for describing our medical situation. “Notice that our current cultural challenges are described with the most dramatic language possible…” The language is too cataclysmic, and (ironically) too “end-of-the-world” for his taste. But if he disagrees with Wilson’s diagnosis, I would like to know what his prognosis is. Are we at stage II cancer? Is the cancer still in the colon? Do we just have a sniffle? Do we need to change the metaphor altogether? You cannot form your treatment plan unless you rightly diagnose the problem in all its severity.
To be honest with you, there seems such an obvious and profound disconnect between the realities of life-changing belief in Christ and the growth of the kingdom on the earth. Lewis said in the Abolition of Man that modern education “castrates the geldings and then bid them be fruitful.” Gordon, and much of evangelical Christianity, seem to take the opposite approach: we plant the seeds, water and feed the root, and then trim the vines back to nubs when they naturally want to grow into our neighbor’s yard. This makes zero sense.
And it is confusing to congregations when they are told to express faith in all areas of their lives, but not expect it to produce any kind of measurable fruit. And if it bears fruit in politics, then that is evidence that the root is rotten. Political fruit, then, is seen as a priori evidence of misaligned Christianity. But the gladiator games ended because of Christians. Was this a good thing? Was this done by political maneuvering, picketing outside the Colosseum? Or was it done by meekness, by the peaceful boycott of bloodlust, and the gentle insistence of lifeward actions? Not violently does the tree’s roots cleave the boulder. If abortion were banned tomorrow, would that be “too close to Jesus taking a seat in the White House?” If he would applaud this action of Christian faith, then why is intentionally trying to get Christians on the city council, or trying to elect Christian congressmen so they pass God-honoring pro-family legislation out of bounds? This draws arbitrary lines, for one, and secondly is completely opposite of our historical and contemporary experience. It is possible to be a Christian and act in such a way that has real political ramifications and that glorifies God without being a “political zealot”. The failure to distinguish the difference is the same failure to distinguish between love and lust.
I understand there may be some stupid people flocking to Moscow because they are sick of what they see as political oppression and just want to stick it to the man. There are wrong headed believers who need to be set straight, just like the disciples needed. And any good teacher will prove his devotion to Christ by accurately dividing what is and is not out of bounds. We do not storm capitals. We do not blow up abortion clinics. We do not execute homosexuals. All of these things Wilson has been accused of condoning when he explicitly and specifically denounces them. But, like Wilson himself has said, “people won’t let me agree with them.”
Some do “want to grab Jesus by force and make him king” (John 6:15) but wouldn’t for a second want him as king of their hearts. In every movement, there exists the seed of its own destruction. Wise men know this and plan for it, and also know they cannot scan everyone’s irises at the door to see who are the orcs. Paul had this problem when some infiltrated their ranks to spy on their freedom. This is why teaching exists, it is why church discipline exists.
One of my favorite tee balls to hit Gordon sets up with, “Do you mean, in God’s providence, all these things—the collapse of Christendom—may be happening precisely because it is God’s appointment of our persecution, and that God may bless us to suffer for righteousness’s sake? We’re not much in control of these things, even if I pray and make efforts to avoid such a providence.” We are not in control of these things in the cosmic sense, yes – only God is sovereign. But is it true that the voice of the church has no reverberating effect on a culture? What if he changed the sentence and said “the growth of Christendom – may be happening precisely because of God’s appointment?” Would we be okay with this? Or does our eschatological doom-porn preclude the possibility of the gospel advancing in a nation, and that happening through the voice of the church preaching to a nation? Why allow for one and not the other? And if we do allow for the growth, and that growth is actually happening somewhere, why do we attack it as the enemy of Christendom unless because of a prior commitment to contraction? It really is hitting the nail on the head when the Church blames God’s sovereignty for a withered cultural vine while it is the one pinching the hose. Again, there goes my presumptions.
Similarly, Gordon says, “Evil men certainly go from bad to worse”. Well, is it also true that good men (Christians) go from good to better? Does he allow for the sanctification of men and this goodness having weight in culture? Or is it only the bad men that influence the world? What would it look like if good men threw their weight around? Or is that too close to not being nice? He says our influence on culture should be as salt and light. Agreed. Whenever we are salt and light we are interacting with the world so that they can “taste and see” the Lord is good.
Salt being salty means people are tasting us (that sounds weird) which means we are in their food, and doesn’t mean they will like the taste. What does light do? It gives light to the house, and this is true whether the other people in the house want that light to reveal the scurrying cockroaches or not. But the annoying thing about light is that darkness can never beat it back, and the more candles lit, the brighter the whole room becomes. There is a strange logic in the presumption of gospel atrophy and future darkness while at the same time equipping the saints to set gospel fires around the world, which he has already established will not actually happen. Can we at least acknowledge the possible growth restrictions this presumes? I know we have talked about this before, and I understand the differences where you are coming from, but I am sleep-deprived and can’t help myself.
He ends his paper with a DeYoung quote, which I think sums it up well for me too, “The most important fight is the fight for faith, not the fight for Christendom.” Tell me the difference. The fight for faith is to recognize Christ’s kingship in our hearts first and then in our world. We have “strength through weakness” not for the weakness’s sake as if it were some positive good, but so that Christ can be seen as strong. There is nothing in the Beatitudes that precludes the approach Wilson takes except for assigning motivations and broken compass bearings to those approaches beforehand. Gordon says human strength does not win the kingdom of God or take down a corrupt American culture. Agreed. The disheartening thing is the only ones who do have the message that possibly could change a corrupt American culture are already convinced they can’t and it won’t. The flight from this scheduled doom is precisely why people are moving to Moscow, and should make us at least question our assumptions.
Well, that was probably more than what I had intended to write. Hope this finds you enjoying the Christmas season. I appreciate the conversation and the willingness to tape up and go a few rounds in love and a brotherly spirit.
“Let earth receive her King!”
Thanks,
Tim
Thought Butter 