Jun
27
2012
Sexual Design Lectures and Gay Protestors
What happened when Doug Wilson went to Bloomington, Indiana (home of Indiana University, the Kinsey Institute, and the fourth most gay city in America)? He was warned against possible protests and violence, but went anyway. You can see some sample clips below of what happened, and after that you can watch the full lectures and the two hours of Q&A he had with those who vehemently disagreed.
You can watch both lectures—including the protests and the Q&A—here.
61 Comments
I just finished watching the first full length video presentation….WOW….just wow. D.A. Carson’s work on tolerance really comes to light here seeing people who want diversity, etc….yet don’t give Doug Wilson the respect to speak freely. This is an interesting and useful interaction!
I’m a little over half way through the first lecture and among the reasons for lament is that in an academic environment, so many students are unwilling and/or incapable of engaging in civil and intelligent dialogue and debate. Rather than hearing an opposing position and then subjecting it to analysis and critique, these students are content to shout down those with whom they disagree.One can only wonder what’s in store for our country with young men and women like these as future leaders.
I admire Doug wilson’s willingness to enter adversarial environments like this in order to be a witness to Christ and pray for the boldness and compassion to be so obedient.
Well, if you look at this link:
http://www.canonwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Back_Poster.jpg
which appears to be Douglas Wilson’s own poster distributed by him at the event (if I understand his website correctly), it appears that Mr. Wilson has no interest in a “civil and intelligent dialogue and debate.” Indeed, it appears he got exactly what he wanted. [But I am sure he is the victim, somehow.]
No, they were distributed by protestors trying to make him look bad.
Yeah, I thought the same thing at first. But I don’t think so. Why would protesters say that Douglas Wilson’s book was highly praised by one of America’s premier historians? Why would protesters call Kinsey a “dirty white perv”? That doesn’t make any sense.
I admit that the website doesn’t say who distributed the posters. So I might be wrong.
Wilson makes VERY clear during the Q&A that the materials distributed were distributed by protestors / antagonistic groups. They were patently *not* distributed by him.
As one of the pastors of the church that organized the event (ClearNote Church, Bloomington), I can tell you for certain that the flyer was in fact distributed by Pastor Wilson. There is quite a backstory that helps to explain all of the particulars of the flyer, but I’m on a date with my wife and I need to stop now.
Stephen, thanks for clarifying. Sorry for my misinformed comment.
Here’s the short version:
In the weeks leading up to the event, one of the many tactics students used to stir up opposition to the lectures was a smear campaign accusing Pastor Wilson of being a racist Neo-Confederate. There were fliers printed up to that effect and distributed on campus (handed out, posted on kiosks, posted in public restrooms, etc.), articles were written in both the student and local newspapers, meetings were held with powerpoint presentations, there were local radio segments dedicated to the subject, an anti-Sexual by Design Facebook page started with over 300 fans, websites were started, hate mail was distributed–the list goes on.
The flier that you can see on canonwired.com is something Pastor Wilson had printed up the day of the lectures to counter some of the slander. It deals specifically with many of the accusations hurled against him over the course of weeks leading up to his coming to campus. Like it or not, it was a tactic chosen by Doug to silence some of the opposition we had been facing and focus things back on sexuality.
We’ll be documenting the events leading up to the lectures on our website–including the full-page cartoon of Jesus disowning Doug in the student paper, the fliers that were distributed on campus, the vandalization of our advertising efforts, confrontations between students on campus and our own students, the work we did to ensure that everything was as safe and civil as possible, etc. So if you’re interested in more context, stay tuned.
Jake Mentzel
College Pastor, Clearnote Church
Campus Director, Clearnote Campus Fellowship
Oh, the irony.
Apparently mine too. Doesn’t Wilson say in the Q&A that the materials being drawn from / distributed were handed out by antagonists?
Apologies, guys.
Phil, let me guess your a gay “Christian”.
What exactly is the problem with the flyer? To my understanding the protesters/audience were staging what they called a “queer-in”. Their naming, not Wilson’s.
The problem is that it is hard to take the high ground (and insist you want a civil discussion) when you are arguing that an “opponent” (who is a noted researcher) was a “dirty white perv.”
Now you can certainly think his research was bunk, or worthless. But that’s the words you use, not “dirty white perv.”
Phil, those of us who minister in Bloomington, in the devastating wake of the Kinsey Institute, know that Kinsey was in fact a dirty white perv. That is being kind. Calling him simply a noted researcher is like calling Hitler a respected world leader.
And thus we have the whole tone for this three-ring circus. No wonder the audience was hostile.
Now Phil, is “three-ring circus” the right choice of words to help encourage a civil discussion here in the comments? :P
LOL. (right?!) Humor. So hard on the internet.
I don’t think you have to be a “gay ‘Christian’” to object to those posters, especially if they were distributed by Wilson. I’m a bit disappointed with the lack of winsomeness in Wilson’s presentation in general.
Erin, are you a born again Christian? What did you watch? Wilson handled himself amazingly well at the God haters hurling their absolute hatred of their creator with their profanity and attempts at shouting down an opposing viewpoint. I wonder how winsome Jesus will be when He returns to judge the world. I think we sometimes forget when Jesus returns for His people, He is going to kill those who have not bowed their knee to Him in this life and cast them into the lake of fire.
I am. I was similarly disappointed with Wilson’s presentations in his debates with Hitchens. I think the man is a gifted writer and I enjoy his blog, but his public debating skills are underwhelming.
I watched the entire Q/A session and it left me with a sick feeling in my heart. To see a university crowd that was so disruptive, disrespectful, crass and incoherent in their questions and their underlying logic made me fearful for the future of our society. If I were a parent of and IU student, I would pull them out and demand my money back, especially if the gentleman in the beard and biker cap was indeed a member of the faculty.
And Erin winsomeness was one of the defining characteristics of Wilson’s Q/A session. But a guy who went head to head with Christopher Hitchens would have no problem with the cotton candy dished out by this crowd.
I felt inside the same thing inside. When I read “The New Tolerance” by Josh McDowell more than 10 years ago, I had a feeling it would become true, but I never thought it would be so vindictive and hostile.
Great job, guys: Doug for handling it well with love, Justin for making it available, Jeff for the post. Immediately after I watched this, I was led to Jn 14:27. Let not our hearts be troubled or afraid, Lord; we look to Your return!
Thank you Doug for your boldness for the Gospel, your courage in the lion’s den, and for your love for all people including the ones who would not let you speak.
I watched the Q&A session and was taken aback by the hate speech directed towards Wilson specifically and Christians in general from a room full of people who are supposedly hyper-sensitive to “hate” speech.
So, Everyone is free to have an opinion and hold to values, as long as those opinions and values align with the tolerance police?
Interesting society that we live in.
I am in awe of Doug Wilson’s calm, poised, polite, good humoured manner, and genuine concern to share the truth in a totally loving way. Ignoring those who were only there to antagonise, I think there were a number of (troubled, but) genuinely inquiring minds in the audience. Credit to those who were trying to understand, and credit to Doug for persevering, for 2 hours! They weren’t there by accident, and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that God has got big plans for some of them.
Don’t worry, Doug. It gets better. Keep fighting the fight.
Did you hear the audience screaming, ‘We can be intolerant today because we are right!’ I certainly did. Doug did a fine job of defending the gospel.
Two thoughts:
1) Wow, college kids can be strongly opinionated and misguided. Who would’ve thunk it?
2) “We can be intolerant today because we are right” is the exact same thing Christians say (ultimately) when they tell homosexuals they cannot get married (or have civil unions).
1) You forgot, immature, hateful, disrespectful, antagonistic and strikingly anti-intellectual
2) Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit A for the “New Tolerance”
Phil – What Christians say (of the orthodox perspective) say is that there is a real and meaningful standard that sits outside ourselves. I’m not sure how this can be spun – at the core – of the matter as intolerance. Are any constrains of our passions to be considered “intolerant”?
Jim,
At the end of the day, Bible-Believing Christians say “we know the real and meaningful standard, and we know we are right.” That is the same thing.
Phil – That, by definition, is external to themselves and that they first and foremost submit themselves to. Compare/contrast where first assumptions lead to. Look at their faces. I could almost weep. Pr. Wilson holds forth the Gospel high for their consideration…and salvation.
Jim,
I’m having trouble following your thought process. But good luck to you.
As Christians we need to not be arrogant but bold and graceful when we respond with claims to being right. It’s not us personally that are right but God who is right. We can speak in authority only by what God has given us in the Scriptures to show someone that they are indeed wrong and that God is right. These moral relativists cannot claim they are right because they have no ultimate authority. Therefore, we claiming to be right by what God’s word says are justified in it when they are not. But I agree with you Phil that Christians in general go about it with the wrong attitude.
Bradley,
I understand that you think/feel that it is not you personally who is claimning to be right, but God who is right. That is, you are describing objective truths about the universe as revealed in the Bible.
The problem is that there is no way to escape the conclusion “I know what God says (because it is in the Bible), and I have read the Bible the right way.” How do you know you have read the Bible the right way? You cannot know, other than to simply assert things like “Well, that’s the way other people have read it,” (How do you know they were right?). At the very end of the day, you simply have to say “I believe I am right.”
[And the fact that there is no 1 way to read the Bible is demonstrated by the fact that there are, what, several hundred Protestant denominations? They all think the have read the Bible the right way (including you). I know you think you are really, really right. But it isn't the Bible telling you that. It is you.]
Here’s a thought experiment, take all of the Biblical passages that lead you to a conservative form of christianity (assuming you are conservative), and bring them to a liberal pastor. She/He will have answers to of your passages. Who is right?
You really have no ultimate authority either. (But I don’t think I can ever convince you of that.)
Phil,
The skepticism you are advocating is faux humility and is an objective conviction of it’s own. Are you skeptical of everything you just stated as a conviction in your comment? Ultimately you have to stand somewhere to say anything coherent.
David,
I certainly could list “universal truths” that I believe in.
But my point is that doing so would be no different from what Bradley is doing.
Mathew,
1) Yes. I agree.
2) I don’t understand.
I really think that Doug handled himself extremely well in most of this. His tact was impeccable at almost all points. He was clear and level-headed.
BUT, I do think he missed on 3 things:
1. He should not have used the language, “dirty white perv” no matter what. It is distracting pejorative language, even though the ideas and conduct of Kinsey are to be rejected and abhorred.
2. He should have repented of his defense of “that’s so gay”. It should be obvious that type of speech is abusive, like saying “raca” or “you fool!” (Matt. 5:22). Continuing to affirm it at the end was to some discredit.
3. He should have taken more of a pastoral tone when students were open about deep pains. He seemed to solely speak as an apologist, and never as a pastor. There is much of an us vs. them dynamic in his language. I wish he would have expressed more pastoral sympathy in moments.
With regard to points 1&2..
having read much of Wilson’s corpus this is a style that will be present when dealing with such issues. It is all very intentional and, surgical. He is one of the few individuals who can (IMHO) use this style well.
Regarding point 3 – I did feel that his tone and demeanor was respectful and, I believe, Pastoral given the context of the venue.
I disagree. I think Doug could have taken a different approach. Why does a Pastor have to comment on the phrase “that’s so gay” as a linguistic expert?
As I watched the Q&A the thought that repeatedly went through my head was ‘How different this would be if Ravi Zacharias was in place of Doug Wilson?’
I don’t know Doug that well. I have seen his debate documentary with Hitchins. But he is not as articulate and winsome as Dr. Zacharias. But this should serve notice to all of us who claim to be ambassadors of Christ to ensure that our speech is always gracious, seasoned with salt.
Keep in mind too that it’s easy to critique and it’s far more difficult to actually get up there and stand your ground in a situation like this. Doug Wilson doesn’t pretend to be the perfect person to address crowds like this, but at least he is one of the few who has the backbone to actually get up there and defend the Gospel to the best of his ability.
David,
I don’t know Mr. Wilson personally, or this situation personally, so I cannot say much about his individual motivations with any first hand knowledge.
But in my experience with these type of things, all it takes is a big enough ego, and you can do most anything.
In this regard, I point to the poster (see above), which shows that there is certainly some funny stuff going on. (Frankly, I find the poster, well, bizarre. And it certainly makes me question Mr. Wilson’s motivations.)
And on the other hand cowardice could be mistaken humility.
Watching the Q&A was heart wrenching, angering, and hopeful at different points. There was one young man who asked something like “What are you trying to say? What am I supposed to do?” and Doug said “Believe in Jesus to be rescued from sin.” The kid looked stunned while the crowd said something like “what if we don’t want to be rescued!!” I knew that I was watching something that had already happened, but I found myself asking God to save many who were there and especially that young man who seemed to want to know the ultimate point–the Gospel.
I was a bit shocked at the lack of respect these college students showed to a man who went head to head, very respectfully, logically, heroically, with Christopher Hitchens. Had these students no knowledge of that? In the Q&A there were so many arrogant questions meant to be like a “gotcha!” thing that were so underwhelming, i.e. David and Jonathan gay…like DW would never have heard that one before…. Really appreciated Doug’s answer to that–David was a sinner, so it was possible!
The info on Kinsey made my stomach turn and my heart plead for mercy on all the children who have been, are, and will be preyed upon by the depraved. Christ have mercy and come back soon!
Regarding liberal pastors having different interpretations from conservatives – this is to be expected. The liberal tradition is one which essentially denies the absolute truthfulness of the Bible, or does not consider the words of the bible to be the words of God. Such relativism cannot make any truth claims. They really are saying “it’s because I believe I’m right”. While they have plenty of valuable contributions to make, differences between what they – and what bible-believing conservatives believe, almost always comes down to those differences over the nature of the bible and its authority. Regarding core doctrinal issues, conservative evangelicals – while they might differ over the secondary theological issues (the example Doug gave was home schooling or not) – really can base their claims on the ultimate authority of the bible by saying “it’s because the bible says so”.
Ellen,
To finish your last sentence: “it’s because the Bible says so and I am reading it the right way.” You cannot avoid it.
Phil,
Yep! In fact many of us are capable of reading a lot of things the “right way!” For instance, I can read a Stop Sign correctly. I can read my paycheck correctly. I can read my bank account statement correctly. I can even read a letter from my wife correctly. The reality is that while there are some things that Christians may disagree upon in Scripture, everything that is truly necessary for our salvation and our living a life that is pleasing to God is usually pretty clear and it only gets muddled up by the old, “Nobody can agree on what the Bible really means” argument. Hogwash! The other reason I have found for why some people will not accept the Scriptural arguments on sexuality is because they don’t want to. They WANT to argue for “difficulty” and “vagueness” so that they do NOT have to obey what is clearly meant and understood in the Bible. Phil, you may be offended by the idea that people can read the Bible correctly. But if you can read what I have written and understand it, why not apply the same rules of language in understanding the words of Scripture when it comes to even more important matters of faith and practice? Phil, methinks thou dost protest too much!
I like the way John Owen put it: “If the Scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all.”
Each objective truth in Scripture only has one meaning. Our Post-Modern culture will say that different people interpret things differently, but at the end of the day illogical interpretation of Scripture is nonsense. There is only one meaning that can come out of it. In a sense, yeah no one can interpret it perfectly. But God’s word wouldn’t mean anything if it was meant for us to put our own emphasis on what it says. That is why we exegete the text and not eisegete it. You read it as you do any other book: in context. I know what your getting at Phil, but it seems as though your saying that none of us can read Scripture in a right manner. Whether you are a fellow Christian or not Phil, I love you. I just think your playing with fire. Where Scripture is not dogmatic we shouldn’t be. But where it is clear and dogmatic, we should be too. And Scripture is clear that homosexuality is a sin and is clearly a corruption of the sexual union that is meant to be between married men and women. Romans 1 is clear that they are unnatural desires and a sign of degradation;and Paul in 1Cor 6:9-10 that no practicing homosexual, the sexually immoral, adulterous, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Only those who are washed by the blood of Christ, who forsake their sins will enter. This is the last time I’m posting a comment because I feel I have made my case very clear.
I just don’t agree with you Phil. I’m reading through Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology and have seen how we can indeed -humbly- learn the truth from the bible. If we can’t, there’s no point reading it. And that would be a hopeless place to be indeed.
Fair enough.
I think in the Q&A, Doug said something like “I don’t think I’m always right, but I always think I’m right. That’s what it means to have a thought.”
I think I can sympathize with what Phil is saying, though our conclusions may differ…Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. And we see in part and know in part until we see Jesus face to face. And then we will know fully as we are fully known…this means that sure, humanly speaking we can’t *really really* know that we are right. But we have faith. And we live and walk in faith. That’s part of what it means to be an orthodox Christian.
Watching the Q&A made me ashamed to be an IU grad.
Wow, this was incredibly sharpening for my thinking on this subject. Like many others have said, I was disheartened and even astonished at the lack of respect from the “tolerant” college students who frequently told Doug how judgmental he was for simply holding to the Biblical position on the matter. Some of them thought they were being so clever and cute too, and then everyone would applause like something had been accomplished other than arrogant name-calling etc.
I wonder how accurate this represents the current college scene nationwide (or even IU)? That was a very sad “discussion” on the part of the students (most of them, not all).
Look, if there are no wrong ways to have sex as long as everyone consents, then how can there be wrong ways to write flyers if all the authors are not coerced in publishing it?
For those of you shocked by the behavior of the college students during the Q&A, have you been on a college campus within the last 20 years? This is par for the course.
And Phil, if you don’t think we’re “reading the Bible the right way”, please do offer us an exegetical argument for reading it another way that is consistent with the entirety of Scripture.
To boil your statements down, you think we can’t really know what the Bible teaches about anything. That is patently false.
Just because it is “par for the course” does not make it acceptable. I would defend liberalism per se, and the right of people to disagree with my pattern of thinking, despite the fact that I disagree with them. But in this night the pattern was shout down fascism. I love Indiana, but I hate this behaviour.
[...] Doug Wilson’s Presentation on Sexuality at the University of Indiana (Gospel Coalition—Justin Taylor, here is a perfect illustration of Dr. Piper is talking about in the first link in the section below.) [...]
Doug’s answers were, on the whole, winsome, clear, and biblical. He was particularly adept at identifying the presupposition behind the questions, and I thought his ability to shrug off the frankly bizarre intolerance from the audience showed genuine grace.
His articulation of the gospel was particularly good. I enjoyed those moments when a couple of questioners got the point of saying: “so, if Jesus has died for my sins, and risen again, then why does it matter what I do?” Doug’s Romans 6 response was bang on the money.