Jul
04
2012
Exchanging Fisticuffs for Gentleness: Doug Wilson on Bloomington
Earlier this year Doug Wilson traveled from Moscow, Idaho, to the Bloomington campus of Indiana University to deliver a series of lectures on sexuality. In the weeks leading up to the event, articles in the student paper accused Wilson of being sexist and a homophobic racist. At the event, Wilson stood before a crammed lecture hall facing nearly 400 people, many of whom were angry protestors.
Wilson gave two lectures and a two-hour Q&A afterwards. The event was continually interrupted by planned protests, angry outbursts, and hateful slurs. One student was arrested and more than 20 were asked to leave. Nevertheless, Wilson displayed an unusual gentleness throughout.
I asked Wilson a few questions about the event and how to engage in apologetics in such a difficult climate. We talked about the use of satire and gentleness, why the issue of homosexuality is such a challenge to the legitimacy of Christianity today, and what he would've done differently.
You were warned about this event. But were you still surprised by the level of animosity?
I was not completely surprised, but I have to say I was somewhat surprised. I know that there are folks out there like that, and I have seen this kind of thing before. But what was surprising was the level of energy in opposing just a couple of talks scheduled for a classroom---their response was way out of proportion to what was going to happen, and so I suppose we should thank them for helping to make it such a roaring success. Seriously . . . couldn't have done it without them.
You began your first talk saying that you hoped that the listeners would be surprised at what they heard. What about your talk did you hope they would be surprised by, and do you think they were?
The agitprop circulating about me beforehand was that I was a racist hate-slinger, so I wanted those present who had believed their own propaganda about me to run headlong into a major existential contradiction. I wanted to present the gospel in a way that seemed like a good news gospel, and I wanted it to hit them that way.
In these tense situations, satire, gentleness, and respect can all be used in response. You are sometimes known for satire, but surrounded by rudeness and antagonism, your manner stayed fairly gentle. What made you use one tactic over the other?
One of the principles of war is surprise. Satire should always be used as a tool or a weapon, and not as a relief valve for a personality disorder. When nonbelievers are expecting an effeminate and (to them) suitably soft articulation of biblical truth, the use of public satire can often come as a complete surprise, and can be very effective. When they are expecting a hate-filled thug, conjured up in their own imagination, surprising them the other way is also effective.
In addition, I should add that in face-to-face, person-to-person situations like this one, the apostle Paul requires us to speak this way.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will (2 Tim. 2:24-26).
In situations like this where repentance is much needed, gentleness is much called-for. I don't believe this passage is a "one-size-fits-all" verse, but it is a size that fits the kind of situation Paul was talking about. And I think Paul was talking about just this kind of event.
I heard a popular apologist say recently that if he had to write his apologetics book over again today, he'd begin with his first chapter on homosexuality. Why do you think homosexuality is such a challenge to the legitimacy of Christianity in society today?
I believe it is the perfect cultural expression of postmodern relativism, so much so that I call it pomosexuality. If culture is religion externalized, as Henry Van Til observed, homosexuality (and other forms of deviance) are the perfect manifestation of an evolutionary, re-invent yourself kind of paganism, which is the religious worldview our nation is in the process of adopting. It is no accident, no coincidence, in other words. Gay pride is not the basic problem; the basic problem is plain old pride---refusing to honor the Creator, and refusing to give him thanks. Paul lays the whole thing out in Romans 1. This disease progresses just the way the physician told us it would.
If you had to do the whole experience over again, what would you do differently? And what bit of advice would you give to pastors who minister in similar social climates?
I would try to answer some of the questions better, try to think more nimbly. If you imagine me with a metaphorical tennis racket, not as many of the answers were in the sweet spot as I would have liked. And of course, where I was happy with my answers, I would want to guard against being happy about that in a wrong way. C. S. Lewis has a great poem about that problem called "The Apologist's Evening Prayer." I keep a copy of that poem in my Bible.
As far as advice goes, a little bit of calm goes a long way. A crowd like that is wanting me to change my mind about homosexuality (obviously), but they are also wanting me to change my heart, my equilibrium. But why should I change anything in response to their demands? Too many Christians agree to change their hearts while stubbornly refusing to change their minds. But that is just as compromising. It is just another way to give in to them, another way of surrendering. If I don't want to put them in charge of my doctrine, why would I put them in charge of my joy?
I have felt for years that the besetting sin of conservatives in our cultural engagements is that of being shrill, and I have devoted a great deal of attention in learning how to avoid that problem. I believe this kind of event shows the great need for that kind of approach.
63 Comments
[...] Starke over at The Gospel Coalition, just conducted an interview with Doug Wilson regarding his experience (suprises, regrets, desires) speaking at Bloomington. For [...]
These lectures and the Q&A were both great. I not only enjoyed the content, but Wilson's composure throughout really impacted me. I also just happened to be reading through 2 Timothy at the time and read the verse he quotes above the day after I watched the lectures. I was convicted to conform and surrender myself to the Word as Wilson obviously has.
As an aside: homosexuality as "an evolutionary, re-invent yourself kind of paganism, which is the religious worldview our nation is in the process of adopting..." I can't help but note that there are other, similar kids of paganism also frequent in evangelical Christianity, that make far fewer TGC headlines, such as deliberate childlessness for married Christians. Or 1-2 children and forget about the church's obligation to care for orphans and the fatherless. I can't read anything about the gay issue in the church without noting the similar pagan tendencies copied yb the church in regards to family size. "Refusing to honor the Creator, and refusing to give him thanks", when He would gladly bless our homes with more children. Spirit of the age.
Hi,
Quote for us the verses which specifically tell us about right "family size" and which condemn having only a few children as "pagan" or "unnatural." Then, also show us all the incidents in which crowds of angry mobs made up of those who have no or few children are mobilized to oppress Christian apologists. Of course, you can't. But you have your little hobby horse and would rather detract from the major issue illustrated here by Wilson rather than give stop riding it.
One of the reasons that evangelicals are so uninfluential is that they'd divide over "family integrated churches" or cessationism or pre-tribulation rapture, than really defend what the Bible says are the core issues.
So much for gentleness...
Dear John,
In addition to Lane's admontion, you were also unfair in your use of scripture. Of course, the Bible doesn't set exact bounds for family size but it does say that children are a blessing and it certainly talks about our obligation to care for orphans and the fatherless. As Pastor Mohler has helpfully pointed out, Christians should have no part in the contraceptive mentality (which is different from the occasional and wise use of contraceptives), which, at its root, is the same as pomosexuality, namely: sex is all about me, my identity, and my pleasure.
And I frankly don't believe you haven't heard the ire and judgment coming from the pomosexual fanclub et al. (including those in the reformed world) against how irresponsible it is to have "too many kids." On that issue they conveniently ask choice and identity to hop in the back seat.
On top of all that, I'm pretty sure Pastor Wilson would agree with RN on this one.
My church had 27 adoptions last year, of orphans. We have a fund to help couples, married male/female ones to adopt. Is it okay with you if we advocate the whole bible? How many do you require and how big should the average family be?
I have eight. But I did have them while still a heathen so I'm not sure if I get credit for that bit of legalism.
Curious though, does this make you a Duggar fan?
Very interesting report and insightful interview.
We evangelicals are going to need to learn from men like Pastor Wilson how to handle the totalitarian oppressiveness of what Wilson calls "pomosexuality".
[...] Continue reading at thegospelcoalition.org [...]
I watched the Q&A and, thought Wilson did not employ his satire (which would have ripped to shreds) he still did a masterful job. I could only help but think of the Apostle Paul and how he might have been in the same kind of situations when he spoke in public and the synagogues.
After watching this series of videos, I mentioned to a friend on FB that I must be living in a bubble. I don't witness this type of bad behavior and ill manners very often, so it was beyond shocking to me. These young people are a product of parents who caved to their every whim and who offered them no Biblical upbringing whatsoever. It is a sad sign of the times we live in.
I thank God that men such as Pastor Doug Wilson had the courage and the patience needed to stand before these "brats" and explain the truth with love.
I think these are people in the act of really establishing themselves. That's how I remember college. This great place where you're parents were not, (just their $$ perhaps) and you were treated like an, 'adult'. You're live without a net for the first time in your life, so you start to flesh things out as you feel they should be. I remember feeling *so* passionately about things in college, just like these lads and lasses. Then He came along and now I am His.
All that energy... I hope Doug does more of this.
Yeah, for a man who went toe-to-toe with a mind like Hitchen's, dealing with college kids making ridiculous arguements would have been cake. But what I appreciated about this was that he didn't demolish their arguement, which for most of them would have been easily done. Instead, he calmly tried to address the most valid part of thier arguement and work from that to give a helpful answer. Well done, I thought.
@Niles, good comment, it reminds me of Wilson saying (regarding Hitchens) that he didn't want to win the argument, he wanted to win the man. That's accomplished by reasoning with people. It's definitely something I still need to learn (that competitive streak runs deep).
Yep, I learned a lot from this talk. While I want to use the bring-down-the-hammer approach, especially for crazy logic and arguements, I find that it is more loving and helpful to follow Wilson's lead.
Doug Wilson has been extremely helpful for me in seeing how to apply Presuppositional apologetics biblically and I would say with class (humor, wit and winsome). This interview is helpful and got me thinking about suprises, something I have not really thought of before in employing during apologetic dialogues.
I noticed that, too, Niles. So often many Christian apologists believe in head-on (give them the blunt truth and let them digest that for their own good) type of apologetics. Had he taken this approach with this “particular audience” the entire group would have walked out, and affirmed that Christians are the haters they suspected them to be all along. But Godly LOVE tempered all of that, didn't it?
I give Pastor Wilson two thumbs up!
Well, if you look at this link:
http://www.canonwired.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Back_Poster.jpg
which is Douglas Wilson’s own poster distributed by him at the event, it appears that Mr. Wilson had no (real) interest in a civil and intelligent dialogue and debate. Indeed, the three-ring-circus that resulted appears to be exactly what he wanted.
[But I am sure he is the victim, somehow.]
Seen it before. Pretty satirical and thought-provoking. However, being willing to do a two-hour plus Q&A session surely indicates that he was looking for dialouge. His demenor during the Q&A was civil, especially in comparison to others. His answers seemed intelligent and informed, whether or not you agree with his view. The crazy that ensued seemed to be supplied in abundance by the attendees. He wasn't a victim, just a dude defending what he believes. And doing it quite well.
Oh, it's satire. That point was lost on me. Probably lost on the audience too. But that makes it ok, I guess.
Seems as though a lot of his points were lost on you and the audience. Thanks for the thoughful response.
First, there is no indication that the poster was actually satire (despite your saying so).
Second, hard to believe you are defending Dr. Wilson calling another person a "dirty white perv" (even if satirical, which it wasn't).
But I guess that is your perogative.
Finally, I agree that Dr. Wilson was civil, and presented answers that were intelligent and informed. Seeing as how that was what he was there for, he did a reasonably good job.
However, it also doesn't surprise me that college kids were strongly opininated (and misguided). Who would've thunk it?
The poster was not satiring Kinsey. I took it to be a jab at those spreading false accusations of racism ahead of the talks. Satirical because it uses exagerated positions even though they are true, and it attempts humor, even if you don't think it's funny.
Glad to see that we're getting somewhere. "...it appears that Mr. Wilson had no (real) interest in a civil and intelligent dialogue and debate." " Seeing as how that was what he was there for, he did a reasonably good job."
See, and I thought you were just trolling.
Niles,
Why did Mr. Wilson call Kinsey a "dirty white perv?" What response did he expect that to get?
Distributing such a poster at such an event is not a way to encourage civil and intelligent dialogue and debate, even though his answers (when he was, I note, being video recorded) may have been civil, intelligent and informed.
Do you think Mr. Wilson is blameless in the atmosphere that was created?
Tit-for-tat, phil. Wilson's not to blame for playing by their (those posting lies ahead of his talk) rules. At least his trash talk via poster was based on truth, regardless of how wryly put.
Curious that you've not said anything about the straight-out lies spread about him ahead of time. When you're done writing a post about how wrong that was, I'll respond. But until that, I'm finished commenting here. Thanks.
I have no idea whether Mr. Wilson's detractors were right or not. But I do know that "tit-for-tat" is not the "proper" Christian response.
And saying that his "trash talk" is based on truth, is to effectively endorse the "dirty white perv" response. Again, this is throwing red meat to hungry college kids.
(And everyone loves their righteous indignation. Including college kids and you -- as evidenced by your last paragraph.)
Way to dodge and go personal, phil.
However, I'm neither righteous nor indignant. I simply pointed out that you're appalled by Wilson's "false" claim, and yet say nothing about the claims made about him. To say that you don't know if his "detractors" were right or not is a cop-out at best. If you listened to the Q&A, you know the answer.
See, now I'd say you went personal first at the 1:15 mark. (Tit for tat, and all that.)
Moreover, my point wasn't about Wilson's "false claim," my point was about the language Wilson used, and how that sets a tone at the Q & A. My point didn't have anything to do with the underlying substance of the claims made against him.
The fact that you want to talk about these claims shows your "righteous indignation." (Indeed, holding any further comments on your part hostage to my writing a post denouncing his critics is a pretty darn good example of that-- that's how "right" you are.)
Finally, it's true, I only listened to the first 25 minutes of the Q&A. (In theory, I have a life.) So I cannot be sure what he says. Still, how do I know what he says is right and what his critics say is wrong?
Finally, Ugh. You commented again. That means I must comment again. Stop commenting, like you promised. Again, in theory, I have a life.
I don't think that having a conversation necessitates righteous indignation.
At the 1:15 mark, I said that some of his points were lost on you and the audience. I didn't know that you hadn't actually listened to the full Q&A. By my calculation, you could have listened to the remainder of the Q&A and had a better understanding of where Wilson's coming from, if you hadn't been commenting.
Anyways, this so-called conversation began because you said he wasn't interested in a civil debate. Then after a comment or two, you said that's what he was there to do... I'll call that progress, and a good day.
I'll repeat:
Why did Mr. Wilson call Kinsey a "dirty white perv?" What response did he expect that to get?
Distributing such a poster at such an event is not a way to encourage civil and intelligent dialogue and debate, even though his answers (when he was, I note, being video recorded) may have been civil, intelligent and informed.
Do you think Mr. Wilson is blameless in the atmosphere that was created?
Finally, do you think he could both 1) contribute to the atmosphere and 2) have civil answers? These two are not mutually exclusive.
Kinsey was called a dirty white perv because he was a dirty white perv.
Read this: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=129232.0;wap2
Especially the research on children and sex. It is sickening.
My point is that calling him a "dirty white perv" under these circumstances (in an academic setting, to college kids) does not foster calm, clear debate. It inhibits it, and instead leads to shouting matches. This is undeniable, even if you honestly believe Kinsey was a "dirty white perv."
But if you aren't looking for an clear, calm debate, then go ahead call him a "dirty white perv.". Oh wait, that's what Wilson did.
Mr. Wilson gave a masterful talk. Some of the language from the students wasn't to foster calm clear debate.
Phil, Kinsey WAS a dirty white perv. He is hailed by the liberal "scholars" as a sexual genius. Nothing makes them more spitting mad than to call the forefather of their own sexual evil a "dirty white perv." Do you understand how Kinsey acquired a lot of his research? By being a pervert. You're looking awfully ignorant and foolish by defending Kinsey. You can defend Dahmer and Bundy next.
First, I am not defending Kinsey. That is a failure of reading comprehension on your part.
Second, if nothing makes liberal "scholars" more mad than calling Kinsey a "dirty white perv," why do you think Mr. Wilson did it in the poster? I know. It was to make the college kids "spitting mad."
And now everyone is shocked ("shocked, I tell you"), that they acted spitting mad in the video.
Again, I think Mr. Wilson got exactly what he wanted.
(Indeed, he says as much above in the interview above!!! Quote "we should thank them [the college kids] for helping to make it such a roaring success. Seriously . . . couldn't have done it without them.")
What's wrong with the poster...? He simply wanted to correct the falsehoods being spread about the campus about him.... And did you watch the video? seriously... Pastor Wilson answered all those questions with grace and truth. Even if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, you can't seriously say he was not there for an intellectual and civil discussion. In a university setting where free speech and differing ideas are things to be celebrated(or so they say), it is thoroughly surprising to see students spit anger and hatred at Wilson for simply disagreeing with them. Say what you want about Wilson, the video was a testament to how hypocritical our academia has become.
Aaron,
The problem with the poster is that it is hard to take the high ground (and insist you want a civil discussion) when you assert that an “opponent” (Dr. Kinsey) was a “dirty white perv.” (Really, dirty?)
Now you can certainly think Dr. Kinsey's research was bunk, or worthless. But that’s the words you use, not “dirty white perv.”
Moreover, going to the Univ. of Indiana, and calling Dr. Kinsey a "dirty white perv" in front of college kids from the Univ. of Indiana (where Dr. Kinsey taught) is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
Again, I suspect he got the reception he was hoping for. And, while I wish they hadn't done it, I'd argue it wasn't surprising at all that (some) students "spat anger and hatred at him."
Phil, Sir, if someone called Usama Bin Laden an evil terrorist, that would be not mean, but ACCURATE. Kinsey was a pervert, and his research was mostly lies and bunk. To tell the truth is not to be unkind, but to say what is accurate. Kinsey was a liar and a pervert. Anyone at Indiana who follows him is following a liar and a pervert, and should be told so to their face.
Do you think telling someone that "to their face" will elicit a thoughtful dialogue? Or will it elicit a three-ring-circus (as shown in the videos)?
Phil,
There is always this duplicity of thought that Christians seem hold perfectly in balance; where, on the one-hand, we face down wickedness and everything that comes against Christ with the sword of the Spirit, and on the other hand we disarm our enemies with Love. Nothing unusual with that! This verse seems to say much the same: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12).”
There is a time we address wickedness (in broad general terms) as an enormous entity that calls for our fierce condemnation and righteousness indignation, because without it we cannot claim to have the mind of Christ. And then there are times we need to temper that response to win souls.
Sorry "righteous" indignation.
This is a good follow up to Doug Wilson's experience in Indiana. I have watched the full recording and thoroughly benefited from it. It is a good example of what we face as Christians in our day. Doug Wilson did a very good job in giving us an example of how to engage. I also appreciate his humility in regards to some of his answers not quite being what he would have liked, experienced pastors who have engaged in public debate understand that, I just appreciate his spirit in stating it for young men who might tend to think you are going to return serve perfectly every time, to use Doug's tennis analogy. I am challenged to learn from this the importance of planning how to engage a hostile and hateful culture and present the gospel without fear, knowing that only Christ can deliver our perishing neighbors...
Is it possible (as in, allowable) to call anything perverted? Is there any kind of behavior which can legitimately earn a person the title of "dirty" or "perv"? Like, for example, being too satirical -- will that do it?
Here's my point. If you can't call NAZI pedophiles "perverts," then who can you call a perv? If you can't call "dirty" anyone building on the inhuman and abusive torture of people, including children, to develop and promote a theory of sexuality, then what can you call "dirty"? (I mean, other than satire of course.)
And the answer is, nothing. If it's out-of-bounds to criticize pedophilia, for example, the for cryin' out loud get off your high horse when it comes to racism, or homophobia, or rape, or patricide... or satire. As Wilson repeatedly said to the crowd, start acting like you really are tolerant and inclusive. Many people have completely lost all sense of moral perspective.
He carried a QandA session for two hours answering questions from different people, many of which just there to bash him and his views, and yet he answered the questions very well with love and gentleness, but also with authority.
I feel pity for the people enslaved by such strong hatred.
[...] Exchanging Fisticuffs for Gentleness – Doug Wilson’s lectures on sexuality draw a hostile crowd (O, D) [...]
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/04/exchanging-fisticuffs-for-gentleness-doug-wilson-... [...]
Beautiful! What a display of tolerance! We will tolerate you so long as you say what we want to hear, (and these are the future leaders of the free world)
[...] Starke at the Gospel Coalition interviewed Wilson about the event. In these tense situations, satire, gentleness, and respect can all be used in [...]
I see this happen all the time when I watch the Veritas Forum talks. If you want to see more things like this where a Christian scholar speaks about Jesus on a college campus amidst opposition then you should check them out. Pretty interesting stuff.
[...] Exchanging Fisticuffs for Gentleness by Doug Wilson (good discussion about doing apologetics before a hostile [...]
I've been a big fan of Doug Wilson for a long time, having benefitted from his writing, blog, lectures, sermons, and debates with Hitchens. I was disappointed by this Q and A. As a pastor, I would have expected Wilson to be more understanding and sympathetic to the students. The intention behind most of his answers seemed to me to merely provide the factual, 'textbook' Evangelical answer to the questions each student asked. It was really lacking in pastoral care or concern, and that was surprising.
Wilson remained composed during most of the Q and A (with the exception of the last few minutes. His use of the word 'bitchy' was really inappropriate and sexist and I think the students were right to call him out for it.) Even so, that wasn't the point. Here, it seemed like winning the hearts of these students was an afterthought, secondary to presenting the truth about homosexuality. I wish he didn't feel like he needed to bifurcate those.
As Christians, is our goal really just to answer the questions we're asked? Wilson said about his debates with Christopher Hitchens that his goal wasn't to win the debate, but to win the man. That didn't seem to be his goal on the campus here. Those students weren't going home believing that Wilson cared about them, or that he loved them, and was sensitive to their unique situation. They went home believing that Wilson speaks for Evangelicals, and all that we Evangelicals have to say about the GLBT community is that they're sinful (yes, so are we - he was clear about that) and it doesn't matter whether this is a struggle for you or not. Wilson's approach was pretty cold - basically: "God has said what He has said. He's God. End of story."
As we engage the culture - especially one as openly hostile as this one, with so many crossed wires with regard to the Bible, God's glory, Jesus Christ, etc., etc., we have to do better than this. Seriously.
Mike, in the context, when the students repeatedly were asking him (no, demanding him) to recant his position on homosexuality as defined by the Bible, I cannot see how any other approach is correct than to say, "God has said thus." Additionally, in the context of a hostile environment, I believe that he did an admirable job of showing patience and compassion as he answered their "questions". Try fielding hateful demands and responses on the fly from 300+ determined kids, and let me know how that works out for you. Let's be honest: the vast majority of those kids weren't there to go home believing that Wilson cared for them. I believe, given the circumstances, Pastor Wilson did an excellent job, by God's grace, to answer questions, field comments, and present the Gospel of Jesus Christ repeatedly.
Did you watch the whole thing?
Yes, I did, along with my husband who had the same conclusion.
It's not enough to say "He did a great job considering the circumstances". Wilson knew what he was getting himself into - he knew it was going to be a hostile environment. Most of those kids weren't really there to have their minds changed by what Wilson said in his talks or his Q and A - they were there to hear what he, as an Evangelical, would say to rationalize what they would call homophobia, and challenge him on it (while the crowd cheers them on). That doesn't excuse DW from the responsibility to shepherd those kids' hearts and minds. It's one thing to say true things on behalf of Christianity to the listener. It's quite another to look a person in the eye, answer their questions with the respect and dignity, and make an appeal to their heart to turn from the destructive path they're on, and embrace the Christ of the Bible.
Of course it was a hostile environment - but Wilson's no fool. He spoke to those kids like they were his enemies. Loving your enemies means (at least) listening to them the way you would a friend.
Hi Mike,
I just want to say that, yes, I do agree with you to some extent. At times, I wish he were more personal with them. I wanted to give that one girl who had attempted suicide at 7 years old a hug. But as you say, you know Wilson pretty well, and based on his life and ministry and other venues, he certainly has assumed the pastoral posture often. I feel the need to give him grace here, as the situation was so hostile and there were so many questioners in line. It took him all he had to get the answer out without being hollered down from the back. I refrain to pass judgment on him from the serene peace of my couch. If anything, we take notes from his experience and try to learn from it before we face a similar situation.
[...] movie – a debate with Christopher Hitchens called Collision of Lives. He recently gave a two-part lecture series followed by a two-hour Q & A about homosexuality and Christian [...]
[...] Doug Wilson on Bloomington: Earlier this year Doug Wilson traveled from Moscow, Idaho, to the Bloomington campus of Indiana University to deliver a series of lectures on sexuality. In the weeks leading up to the event, articles in the student paper accused Wilson of being sexist and a homophobic racist. At the event, Wilson stood before a crammed lecture hall facing nearly 400 people, many of whom were angry protestors. Keep Reading >>> [...]
[...] need to be approached with the gospel in gentleness, like Pastor Doug Wilson recently displayed in his talks on human sexuality given at Indiana University. In the spirit of the gently flowing Spem in Alium pointing people [...]
[...] integrated into the evangelical-Reformed mainstream. I noticed that, in July of this year, he was interviewed on the TGC website about lectures given on the campus of the University of Indiana and that he [...]
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/07/04/exchanging-fisticuffs-for-gentleness-doug-wilson-... [...]
[...] integrated into the evangelical-Reformed mainstream. I noticed that, in July of this year, he was interviewed on the TGC website about lectures given on the campus of the University of Indiana and that he [...]