Pages

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Peeling the onion

I notice that Jared Wilson is catching flack from both sides for his retraction. Some critics are acting as if he betrayed the cause. Sold us out.

It’s important to keep a sense of perspective. Complementarianism is a hill to die on, but a particular post on complementarianism is not a hill to die on. Complementarianism is a point of principle, but the wording of a post on complementarianism is a tactical and pastoral question.

To back down on the issue of complementarianism would be a moral and theological compromise, but retracting a post is just a judgment call. Complementarianism isn’t defined by the precise words that Jared quoted from Doug Wilson. And there’s no reason why Jared’s entire ministry should be defined by a single post.

In a worldly sense, Rachel Evans scored a win when Jared retracted his post, but that’s a pyrrhic victory. As long as God is on your side, it doesn’t matter what the scoreboard says. There’s no correlation between Rachel’s self-importance and her actual importance.

We need to retain a sense of proportion. Distinguish principle from tactics. Otherwise, we end up like the late Carl McIntire, who broke with Machen, then squandered the rest of his life peeling the onion until nothing was left.

8 comments:

  1. Rachel Held Evans is important only as a barometer for the shallow-thinking pseudo-evangelical left. She's something of a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unfortunately, she seems to have a lot of influence and lots of emergent types and the secular media pay attention to her; so we should also have good answers and reasons to refute her arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The hard part is reading her. It doesn't require much to refute her.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But tactics are based on . . . principles, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That doesn't mean tactics are the principle being defended. Rather, the principle tactics are based on would be the question of what tactics are ethical. That's a different principle than the one being defended.

      And even then we still need to distinguish between tactics and principles. Tactics are a process by which we hope to achieve a certain end, not an end in themselves. We generally judge tactics by their effectiveness (as well as their moral licitness). But we don't normally judge principles by their effectiveness.

      Delete
    2. But if the principle fought for and the principle(s) on which the tactic being used are so closely related that changing tactic is tantamount to giving up on the principle being fought for, then there is not a strategic retreat but a virtual capitulation.

      Delete
  5. Expect a call from Tim Bayly on this one, Steve.

    Coward! Conniver!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tried to conceal my true identity for as long as I could, but truth will out :-(

      Delete