ON LOSING MY DEBATE WITH ANDREW WILSON (🧵)
Some of you probably saw my debate with Andrew Wilson last Saturday. I think he won the debate quite decisively. This is not to say that I think he is correct; far from it. But I did not do a good job revealing that.
Because I think the audience deserves better answers than I gave, I am going to address some of these topics, but I want to acknowledge at the outset that this is not some sort of attempt to retroactively win the debate or get the last word. I happily pass to the victor’s crown to @paleochristcon (and invite him to respond to anything I say here as well if he has anything to add.)
Beyond that, and honestly far more importantly, I want to speak, for lack a better term, to the “Sewing Circle Christians“ and the “Based“ Christians.
This will be long, but if you took the time to watch the debate, or to express an opinion on it, I ask you to take the time to read this, and/or join me when I go live tonight at 8 EST to talk about it.
Some of you probably saw my debate with Andrew Wilson last Saturday. I think he won the debate quite decisively. This is not to say that I think he is correct; far from it. But I did not do a good job revealing that.
Because I think the audience deserves better answers than I gave, I am going to address some of these topics, but I want to acknowledge at the outset that this is not some sort of attempt to retroactively win the debate or get the last word. I happily pass to the victor’s crown to @paleochristcon (and invite him to respond to anything I say here as well if he has anything to add.)
Beyond that, and honestly far more importantly, I want to speak, for lack a better term, to the “Sewing Circle Christians“ and the “Based“ Christians.
This will be long, but if you took the time to watch the debate, or to express an opinion on it, I ask you to take the time to read this, and/or join me when I go live tonight at 8 EST to talk about it.
1. Sola Scriptura.
The question of which standard will be *the* standard is a critical one. For Andrew as a professor of Eastern Orthodoxy, he would say that it is a combination of sacred tradition and scripture. As a protestant, I would say that church tradition is extremely valuable and important, but ultimately must be judged by the written word of God.
I would also contend, and here’s the important part, that a two-part authority structure will always of necessity yield to one part or the other.
In other words, as a protestant, I actually also believe in the authority of church tradition as well as scripture. But when the rubber meets the road, in a pinch, I’m going to look to scripture as my final authority.
Andrew will not think of it this way. And since church tradition has final interpretive authority for him, I would argue that church authority is not equal with scripture in his view – it is above it. If scripture cannot correct tradition, as we see done throughout scripture (by Christ and the Bereans to name a few), then scripture is subject to tradition.
It is also worth restating, as was noted by some who commented, that we all are making personal judgments. We all are assessing truth claims for ourselves. The person who comes to EO may end up deciding to just go with whatever church tradition says, but that is still only after exercising their own personal judgment to get there.
On the flipside, I as a Protestant do exercise my personal judgment in reading scripture, but I also believe that scripture in the vast majority of its topics is clear and understandable – that God wrote it for us to be able to understand it. So while there will be some debates around the edges, I do not believe that Sola Scriptura reduces us to just interpreting whatever we want out of the book based on our feelings.
I would also note that Andrew is completely right to say that protestants need to know more about church history – and that is church history including before the 1500s.
But a correct understanding of Protestantism is not that we made up a new religion in the 1500s; rather in the 1500s there was a massive pushback towards the traditions of the apostles as they revealed in their epistles in scripture.
This was the intention of the reformers, it is the intention of the reformed tradition – and if we are serious about it, then we should know our church history. The fact of the matter is that if Protestantism is a religion that started in the 1500s and not a reformation back to the one true faith, then Protestantism is not Christianity.
The question of which standard will be *the* standard is a critical one. For Andrew as a professor of Eastern Orthodoxy, he would say that it is a combination of sacred tradition and scripture. As a protestant, I would say that church tradition is extremely valuable and important, but ultimately must be judged by the written word of God.
I would also contend, and here’s the important part, that a two-part authority structure will always of necessity yield to one part or the other.
In other words, as a protestant, I actually also believe in the authority of church tradition as well as scripture. But when the rubber meets the road, in a pinch, I’m going to look to scripture as my final authority.
Andrew will not think of it this way. And since church tradition has final interpretive authority for him, I would argue that church authority is not equal with scripture in his view – it is above it. If scripture cannot correct tradition, as we see done throughout scripture (by Christ and the Bereans to name a few), then scripture is subject to tradition.
It is also worth restating, as was noted by some who commented, that we all are making personal judgments. We all are assessing truth claims for ourselves. The person who comes to EO may end up deciding to just go with whatever church tradition says, but that is still only after exercising their own personal judgment to get there.
On the flipside, I as a Protestant do exercise my personal judgment in reading scripture, but I also believe that scripture in the vast majority of its topics is clear and understandable – that God wrote it for us to be able to understand it. So while there will be some debates around the edges, I do not believe that Sola Scriptura reduces us to just interpreting whatever we want out of the book based on our feelings.
I would also note that Andrew is completely right to say that protestants need to know more about church history – and that is church history including before the 1500s.
But a correct understanding of Protestantism is not that we made up a new religion in the 1500s; rather in the 1500s there was a massive pushback towards the traditions of the apostles as they revealed in their epistles in scripture.
This was the intention of the reformers, it is the intention of the reformed tradition – and if we are serious about it, then we should know our church history. The fact of the matter is that if Protestantism is a religion that started in the 1500s and not a reformation back to the one true faith, then Protestantism is not Christianity.
2. An objective standard for speech.
One of the points on which the debate really got hung up was the reality that scripture does not give us a list of words that we are or are not allowed to say. Furthermore, Andrew is absolutely correct that there is an undeniable cultural aspect to what is acceptable speech.
However, this does not mean that there is no standard for acceptable speech. Just because what is a bad word here may not be a bad word in England, and vice versa, it does not then follow that there are no bad words. Sure, “bloody“ may not inherently be a bad word. But if you are in England, where it is a word of ill repute, culturally understood to be unwholesome, then we should “respect what is right in the sight of all men.“
“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.” - Rom. 12:17
“for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of other people.” - 2 Cor. 8:21
My favorite illustration for this was actually provided by Andrew in the Japanese shoe analogy. He’s absolutely correct to say that there is nothing inherently dishonoring to one’s parents about wearing one’s shoes in their presence.
However – and I think he would agree – it would be sinful in a culture where tradition demanded the removal of shoes as a sign of honor to parents.
This is much the same way that if waving to your parents with only your middle finger was a sign of respect in Nigeria, then it would be completely appropriate to do in Nigeria – and yet it would be obviously sinful to do in America because it is an obvious sign of dishonor to your parents.
In other words, Scripture gives us the command to honor our parents. Dishonoring our parents is sinful. Scripture says nothing about shoes or fingers, but if we are in a culture in which it is understood that using either is a way of spitting in their face, then in that culture, it would be sin.
So it is with speech. There is nothing inherently sinful about the sequence of sounds that make up the F-bomb.
However, in American culture, it is a vulgar and sexual term. Even when it is not being used to literally describe the sexual act, that is still its inherent meaning in our culture. It is an unwholesome word, in other words.
Furthermore, Scripture gives us wisdom areas. Modesty is a good example of this. Scripture does not dictate what women may or may not wear, but it does give us principles of modesty and of the shame of nakedness. Scripture is clear that a woman’s breasts are sexually arousing for men (Pr. 5, Song); that “baring the thigh“ is symbolic of nakedness (Is. 47:2).
So even though Scripture does not give us a clothing catalogue, and while we should give each other the grace to have different opinions on this topic, we also should all together be able to look at a string bikini and say “yeah, that’s nakedness.“
Just because God didn’t give us an exactly defined line does not mean that everything is fair game.
One of the points on which the debate really got hung up was the reality that scripture does not give us a list of words that we are or are not allowed to say. Furthermore, Andrew is absolutely correct that there is an undeniable cultural aspect to what is acceptable speech.
However, this does not mean that there is no standard for acceptable speech. Just because what is a bad word here may not be a bad word in England, and vice versa, it does not then follow that there are no bad words. Sure, “bloody“ may not inherently be a bad word. But if you are in England, where it is a word of ill repute, culturally understood to be unwholesome, then we should “respect what is right in the sight of all men.“
“Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.” - Rom. 12:17
“for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of other people.” - 2 Cor. 8:21
My favorite illustration for this was actually provided by Andrew in the Japanese shoe analogy. He’s absolutely correct to say that there is nothing inherently dishonoring to one’s parents about wearing one’s shoes in their presence.
However – and I think he would agree – it would be sinful in a culture where tradition demanded the removal of shoes as a sign of honor to parents.
This is much the same way that if waving to your parents with only your middle finger was a sign of respect in Nigeria, then it would be completely appropriate to do in Nigeria – and yet it would be obviously sinful to do in America because it is an obvious sign of dishonor to your parents.
In other words, Scripture gives us the command to honor our parents. Dishonoring our parents is sinful. Scripture says nothing about shoes or fingers, but if we are in a culture in which it is understood that using either is a way of spitting in their face, then in that culture, it would be sin.
So it is with speech. There is nothing inherently sinful about the sequence of sounds that make up the F-bomb.
However, in American culture, it is a vulgar and sexual term. Even when it is not being used to literally describe the sexual act, that is still its inherent meaning in our culture. It is an unwholesome word, in other words.
Furthermore, Scripture gives us wisdom areas. Modesty is a good example of this. Scripture does not dictate what women may or may not wear, but it does give us principles of modesty and of the shame of nakedness. Scripture is clear that a woman’s breasts are sexually arousing for men (Pr. 5, Song); that “baring the thigh“ is symbolic of nakedness (Is. 47:2).
So even though Scripture does not give us a clothing catalogue, and while we should give each other the grace to have different opinions on this topic, we also should all together be able to look at a string bikini and say “yeah, that’s nakedness.“
Just because God didn’t give us an exactly defined line does not mean that everything is fair game.
3. Insults and crude jokes.
Andrew contended that when Scripture forbids “coarse jesting”, the apostolic concern is not “dirty jokes,” but rather treating God flippantly. Of course, we both certainly agree that treating God flippantly or blasphemously is a problem.
But this is simply not in the text, and even if this argument could be made for some of the passages, the vast number, clarity, and weight of Scriptures that govern our speech *as speech* is far too much to ignore.
“Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.” - 1 Tim. 4:12
When it comes to “returning insult for insult,” Andrew contended that many of these Scriptures were more about de-escalation than they were an actual rule of conduct. In other words, “don’t return insult for insult, or else they are going to throw you to the lions.”
But this argument from his historical context is remarkably similar to the egalitarian argument that wives should not submit to their husbands anymore because those commands were just given based on what was going on in their culture at the time.
Yes, Christians at that time were living in a particular historical context. But we may not dismiss apostolic commands simply because we live at a different time. That exegetical principle does not end.
“But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” - Col. 3:8
“with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,” - 2 Tim. 2:25
“not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you would inherit a blessing.” - 1 Pet. 3:9
“For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;” - 1 Pet. 2:21-23
“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” - Matt. 5:39
This last one is in the context of Jesus giving the full picture of the law – certainly something which is not dependent on culture.
Please again note that I am in no way denying that there are appropriate times for Christians to use harsh words. This is obvious from Scripture (Tit. 1:13). But it is equally obvious that it should not be because we are returning evil for evil, but rather because, when it is wise inappropriate, we are condemning evil with the harshness that deserves.
I completely agree that the soft and wimpy Jesus of some sectors of American Christianity- Who would never hurt a fly, let alone wield a whip, or have a sword coming out of His mouth – that is not the Jesus of the Bible.
But we may not use that as an excuse to ignore what He said so clearly.
He is Lion AND Lamb. Shepherd AND King.
We must settle for nothing less.
Andrew contended that when Scripture forbids “coarse jesting”, the apostolic concern is not “dirty jokes,” but rather treating God flippantly. Of course, we both certainly agree that treating God flippantly or blasphemously is a problem.
But this is simply not in the text, and even if this argument could be made for some of the passages, the vast number, clarity, and weight of Scriptures that govern our speech *as speech* is far too much to ignore.
“Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe.” - 1 Tim. 4:12
When it comes to “returning insult for insult,” Andrew contended that many of these Scriptures were more about de-escalation than they were an actual rule of conduct. In other words, “don’t return insult for insult, or else they are going to throw you to the lions.”
But this argument from his historical context is remarkably similar to the egalitarian argument that wives should not submit to their husbands anymore because those commands were just given based on what was going on in their culture at the time.
Yes, Christians at that time were living in a particular historical context. But we may not dismiss apostolic commands simply because we live at a different time. That exegetical principle does not end.
“But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.” - Col. 3:8
“with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,” - 2 Tim. 2:25
“not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you would inherit a blessing.” - 1 Pet. 3:9
“For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;” - 1 Pet. 2:21-23
“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” - Matt. 5:39
This last one is in the context of Jesus giving the full picture of the law – certainly something which is not dependent on culture.
Please again note that I am in no way denying that there are appropriate times for Christians to use harsh words. This is obvious from Scripture (Tit. 1:13). But it is equally obvious that it should not be because we are returning evil for evil, but rather because, when it is wise inappropriate, we are condemning evil with the harshness that deserves.
I completely agree that the soft and wimpy Jesus of some sectors of American Christianity- Who would never hurt a fly, let alone wield a whip, or have a sword coming out of His mouth – that is not the Jesus of the Bible.
But we may not use that as an excuse to ignore what He said so clearly.
He is Lion AND Lamb. Shepherd AND King.
We must settle for nothing less.
4. To the “Sewing Circle Christians.”
Now I want to talk about what I think is perhaps even more important than the actual topic of the debate.
Andrew expressed repeated frustration at the “Sewing Circle Christians” for how, despite the years he has spent dismantling leftist ideologies, still treat him as a pariah, and cast him out of polite society, seeming only interested in unleashing vitriol at him, and blind to anything good he has done.
He’s right.
Over the course of preparing the debate and talking with him, I discovered another side to Andrew Wilson. I think deep down in there somewhere, the guy actually has a heart. Don’t tell anybody, I think he wants it to remain a secret.
Andrew really has spent years dismantling godless and destructive ideologies in areas where many evangelists and pastors would fear to tread. And I’m thankful for that.
His mouth is way out of line. Some of the ways that he recommends treating women are Biblically indefensible and are really bad advice to be giving men.
But woe be unto those of us with clean pasts and clean vocabulary if we become Pharisees who are so focused on the outside of the cup that we stopped caring about the inside.
Social media influencers are people too.
After the debate, so many people spoke up either to me in encouragement or in defense of me. I appreciate every one of you. I really mean that. Many folks said that I won the debate simply because of the way that I acted, or that Andrew‘s conduct was proof that he had no real arguments to stand on.
But you need to understand something.
A lot of you are wrong.
Andrew was not cussing because he had no arguments. I agree, he acted like a jerk, and it didn’t help his case. I agree that it did not model the kind of deportment that we see commanded in Scripture. I agree that he should be rebuked for that.
But that is no excuse for bearing false witness and saying that Andrew had no arguments and just wanted to yell and cuss and toot his own horn. That’s simply not what happened.
And you need to understand something else.
When you go straight to emotionally defending somebody like me, you prove Andrew to be correct. Rather than engaging with the actual arguments that he is making and the actual things that he has done, you are giving an emotion-based response and rejecting him based on his dirty mouth.
Jesus did indeed say that we would know teachers by their fruits. Andrew does indeed have a very rotten patch of fruit on his tree. But it’s not the whole tree. You and I have some spots that look pretty bad as well. And the more I have learned about Andrew the more I have realized that there actually are some pretty significant areas of good fruit on his tree too.
The Pharisees were really really good at recognizing “bad fruit.“ But they were not good at recognizing the kind of fruit that actually mattered.
I’ve had so many people on “my side” say that Andrew is not a Christian. He’s a devil. He’s a wolf. He is bearing fruits of the spirit of darkness. Etc.
Put yourself in his shoes guys. What if he actually is who he says he is? Just some redneck with an entertainment company who is using it to destroy godless leftist ideologies?
And the Christian community calls him an emissary of the devil?
Is it any wonder that he does not listen to what we have to say?
Now I want to talk about what I think is perhaps even more important than the actual topic of the debate.
Andrew expressed repeated frustration at the “Sewing Circle Christians” for how, despite the years he has spent dismantling leftist ideologies, still treat him as a pariah, and cast him out of polite society, seeming only interested in unleashing vitriol at him, and blind to anything good he has done.
He’s right.
Over the course of preparing the debate and talking with him, I discovered another side to Andrew Wilson. I think deep down in there somewhere, the guy actually has a heart. Don’t tell anybody, I think he wants it to remain a secret.
Andrew really has spent years dismantling godless and destructive ideologies in areas where many evangelists and pastors would fear to tread. And I’m thankful for that.
His mouth is way out of line. Some of the ways that he recommends treating women are Biblically indefensible and are really bad advice to be giving men.
But woe be unto those of us with clean pasts and clean vocabulary if we become Pharisees who are so focused on the outside of the cup that we stopped caring about the inside.
Social media influencers are people too.
After the debate, so many people spoke up either to me in encouragement or in defense of me. I appreciate every one of you. I really mean that. Many folks said that I won the debate simply because of the way that I acted, or that Andrew‘s conduct was proof that he had no real arguments to stand on.
But you need to understand something.
A lot of you are wrong.
Andrew was not cussing because he had no arguments. I agree, he acted like a jerk, and it didn’t help his case. I agree that it did not model the kind of deportment that we see commanded in Scripture. I agree that he should be rebuked for that.
But that is no excuse for bearing false witness and saying that Andrew had no arguments and just wanted to yell and cuss and toot his own horn. That’s simply not what happened.
And you need to understand something else.
When you go straight to emotionally defending somebody like me, you prove Andrew to be correct. Rather than engaging with the actual arguments that he is making and the actual things that he has done, you are giving an emotion-based response and rejecting him based on his dirty mouth.
Jesus did indeed say that we would know teachers by their fruits. Andrew does indeed have a very rotten patch of fruit on his tree. But it’s not the whole tree. You and I have some spots that look pretty bad as well. And the more I have learned about Andrew the more I have realized that there actually are some pretty significant areas of good fruit on his tree too.
The Pharisees were really really good at recognizing “bad fruit.“ But they were not good at recognizing the kind of fruit that actually mattered.
I’ve had so many people on “my side” say that Andrew is not a Christian. He’s a devil. He’s a wolf. He is bearing fruits of the spirit of darkness. Etc.
Put yourself in his shoes guys. What if he actually is who he says he is? Just some redneck with an entertainment company who is using it to destroy godless leftist ideologies?
And the Christian community calls him an emissary of the devil?
Is it any wonder that he does not listen to what we have to say?
5. To the “Based” Christians.
You guys need to take the log out of your own eye. I recognize that some of you really have been rejected unfairly or condemned because you would not get on some bandwagon. Some of you were thrown out of polite society because you just talk like you always have. That would be really frustrating.
But you need to recognize something too. Some of the “Sewing Circle Christians” really are Pharisees. But a lot of them are people who really love Jesus Christ, and who would love nothing better than to see you in Heaven.
And for you to reject and repudiate and condemn them as “Sewing Circle Christians” instead of interacting with and humbling yourself and learning from areas where they may be correct, that’s just pride. You’re doing the exact same thing that you’re condemning them of. You’re being just as judgmental as they are.
Knock it off.
Humble yourselves. Don’t submit to some matriarchy, but do submit to Scripture. Quit accusing everybody of being “tone police” and ask yourself – do they really have a point here? Is there an area where I can grow in my holiness and represent Jesus better?
That actually does matter, guys. God is the One Who brings victory. It’s not up to our strategies, primarily; it is up to His Grace. We should seek to please Him and let Him bring victory His way- not simply to win at all costs.
“The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But the victory belongs to the LORD.” - Pr. 21:31
So you guys don’t get off the hook here either. Put yourself in the shoes of the “Sewing Circle Christians.“
They have always been taught, and rightly, that God cares about how they speak and how they treat others. Then, suddenly, they see a clip of someone who claims to be a Christian berating a baby Christian in some of the most perverse language they’ve ever heard, and on a podcast that’s being shared to millions. They see the comments full of people thinking that apparently Christians believe that men should cuss out their wives.
They know nothing else about this guy. All they know is that apparently he is dreadfully misrepresenting what God tells husbands to do. And so they say “no, the Bible tells husbands to love their wives, God doesn’t want us to be cruel and insulting, Jesus forgives repentant prostitutes, this is not Christianity!”
And then the response that they get, rather than clarification or conversation, is name-calling, rejection, and condemnation. They are told that they are fake and gay and “Sewing Circle Christians” simply because they are seeking to be faithful to the Bible and to represent Jesus well.
Put yourself in their shoes. Knowing what they know, why in the world would they think that they were interacting with real Christians?
You guys need to take the log out of your own eye. I recognize that some of you really have been rejected unfairly or condemned because you would not get on some bandwagon. Some of you were thrown out of polite society because you just talk like you always have. That would be really frustrating.
But you need to recognize something too. Some of the “Sewing Circle Christians” really are Pharisees. But a lot of them are people who really love Jesus Christ, and who would love nothing better than to see you in Heaven.
And for you to reject and repudiate and condemn them as “Sewing Circle Christians” instead of interacting with and humbling yourself and learning from areas where they may be correct, that’s just pride. You’re doing the exact same thing that you’re condemning them of. You’re being just as judgmental as they are.
Knock it off.
Humble yourselves. Don’t submit to some matriarchy, but do submit to Scripture. Quit accusing everybody of being “tone police” and ask yourself – do they really have a point here? Is there an area where I can grow in my holiness and represent Jesus better?
That actually does matter, guys. God is the One Who brings victory. It’s not up to our strategies, primarily; it is up to His Grace. We should seek to please Him and let Him bring victory His way- not simply to win at all costs.
“The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But the victory belongs to the LORD.” - Pr. 21:31
So you guys don’t get off the hook here either. Put yourself in the shoes of the “Sewing Circle Christians.“
They have always been taught, and rightly, that God cares about how they speak and how they treat others. Then, suddenly, they see a clip of someone who claims to be a Christian berating a baby Christian in some of the most perverse language they’ve ever heard, and on a podcast that’s being shared to millions. They see the comments full of people thinking that apparently Christians believe that men should cuss out their wives.
They know nothing else about this guy. All they know is that apparently he is dreadfully misrepresenting what God tells husbands to do. And so they say “no, the Bible tells husbands to love their wives, God doesn’t want us to be cruel and insulting, Jesus forgives repentant prostitutes, this is not Christianity!”
And then the response that they get, rather than clarification or conversation, is name-calling, rejection, and condemnation. They are told that they are fake and gay and “Sewing Circle Christians” simply because they are seeking to be faithful to the Bible and to represent Jesus well.
Put yourself in their shoes. Knowing what they know, why in the world would they think that they were interacting with real Christians?
6. The Internet.
A massive part of this conversation that desperately needs to be understood is that the Internet is stupid. And if we are going to not be stupid on the Internet, then we need to grow in our maturity.
So many of the fights within the Christian community right now are fights between people who live in completely different worlds. In the debate, Andrew told the audience not to be fooled, because surely Marlon and Gabriel swear sometimes too. I don’t know about Marlon, but I say “heck“ maybe once a year. I got married as a virgin. The strongest drug I’ve ever taken is coffee, and I’ve only ever inhaled smoke accidentally.
I don’t say this to brag. I’m thankful for where I got to start off. For all that my parents did to protect me from baggage. For the grace of Jesus. But I don’t think that that makes me better than anyone else. It does give me a head-start, but I still need Jesus just as much as anybody else does.
I say this simply to observe that we have people who are coming out of literally making homemade pornography. People with massive body counts and drug and alcohol addictions. People who just live in parts of the country where they are surrounded by whoredom and vice.
I don’t know about Andrew‘s past, but he describes himself as a redneck, and he’s probably talking the way he always has. The things that are absolutely shocking to the ears of someone who grew up in a conservative church (and who thinks “gosh darn” might get you sent to hell) are as normal to Andrew as saying “good morning.”
They shouldn’t be. I would argue that he should pursue holiness in his speech. I covered that earlier. I’m not saying this to say that these issues don’t matter. I’m saying that we need to recognize that the Internet makes these conversations much harder.
We don’t know each other. We are commenting on each other from a million miles away. Often times, we are commenting based on a couple of clips of someone. Up until this week, I pretty much only knew Andrew from his viral clips in which he curses and swears at people. And it sounds like at the time of our debate he still thought that I was some milk-toast egalitarian who had never considered that “servant leadership“ might be a devilish attempt to remove a husband‘s authority.
What does all of this mean?
It means that, especially in an Internet age, we should be “quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” We should impartially apply biblical standards to everyone that we encounter, but we should also be ready to give grace and a lot slower to write people off.
It means that some people need to stop calling others “fake and gay Sewing Circle Christians“. And it means that other people need to stop being so quick to decide that everybody who speaks harsher than they are comfortable with is a wolf in sheep‘s clothing who’s trying to advance doctrines of abuse and perversion within the church.
A massive part of this conversation that desperately needs to be understood is that the Internet is stupid. And if we are going to not be stupid on the Internet, then we need to grow in our maturity.
So many of the fights within the Christian community right now are fights between people who live in completely different worlds. In the debate, Andrew told the audience not to be fooled, because surely Marlon and Gabriel swear sometimes too. I don’t know about Marlon, but I say “heck“ maybe once a year. I got married as a virgin. The strongest drug I’ve ever taken is coffee, and I’ve only ever inhaled smoke accidentally.
I don’t say this to brag. I’m thankful for where I got to start off. For all that my parents did to protect me from baggage. For the grace of Jesus. But I don’t think that that makes me better than anyone else. It does give me a head-start, but I still need Jesus just as much as anybody else does.
I say this simply to observe that we have people who are coming out of literally making homemade pornography. People with massive body counts and drug and alcohol addictions. People who just live in parts of the country where they are surrounded by whoredom and vice.
I don’t know about Andrew‘s past, but he describes himself as a redneck, and he’s probably talking the way he always has. The things that are absolutely shocking to the ears of someone who grew up in a conservative church (and who thinks “gosh darn” might get you sent to hell) are as normal to Andrew as saying “good morning.”
They shouldn’t be. I would argue that he should pursue holiness in his speech. I covered that earlier. I’m not saying this to say that these issues don’t matter. I’m saying that we need to recognize that the Internet makes these conversations much harder.
We don’t know each other. We are commenting on each other from a million miles away. Often times, we are commenting based on a couple of clips of someone. Up until this week, I pretty much only knew Andrew from his viral clips in which he curses and swears at people. And it sounds like at the time of our debate he still thought that I was some milk-toast egalitarian who had never considered that “servant leadership“ might be a devilish attempt to remove a husband‘s authority.
What does all of this mean?
It means that, especially in an Internet age, we should be “quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” We should impartially apply biblical standards to everyone that we encounter, but we should also be ready to give grace and a lot slower to write people off.
It means that some people need to stop calling others “fake and gay Sewing Circle Christians“. And it means that other people need to stop being so quick to decide that everybody who speaks harsher than they are comfortable with is a wolf in sheep‘s clothing who’s trying to advance doctrines of abuse and perversion within the church.
7. Love.
Imagine a world where we actually argue with each other over what the Bible says, and we actually do it in humility and love. Where we can actually all unify on fighting the crazy leftist hordes at the gate without turning a blind eye and failing to keep each other accountable in how we fight the battles of the Lord.
What if I can continue to call out Andrew Wilson when I think he steps outside of Biblical lines, but I can do it without calling him a devil? What if I can actually cheer him on when he is dismantling atheism or feminism without endorsing everything he ever says? What if I can consider his arguments instead of only hearing the way he delivers them? What if I look at myself in the mirror and make sure that the standards I am applying are Scriptural and not just emotional?
And if all he ever does is just cuss at me in response, what if I take the first step in being mature and removing the log from my own eye? What if I chance an arm and overlook a transgression?
And what if he does that too? What if he humbly considers where he might improve while stubbornly refusing to cower to screech mobs? What if he looks past all the condemnation and sees a bunch of people who have just never actually thought through this issue- a bunch of people who would welcome him into their churches with open arms if he walked through the door?
What if all men knew that we were disciples of Jesus Christ by our love for one another?
Tonight at 8 EST I will be talking about all of this live. I hope you’ll join me and bring your questions and comments.
Imagine a world where we actually argue with each other over what the Bible says, and we actually do it in humility and love. Where we can actually all unify on fighting the crazy leftist hordes at the gate without turning a blind eye and failing to keep each other accountable in how we fight the battles of the Lord.
What if I can continue to call out Andrew Wilson when I think he steps outside of Biblical lines, but I can do it without calling him a devil? What if I can actually cheer him on when he is dismantling atheism or feminism without endorsing everything he ever says? What if I can consider his arguments instead of only hearing the way he delivers them? What if I look at myself in the mirror and make sure that the standards I am applying are Scriptural and not just emotional?
And if all he ever does is just cuss at me in response, what if I take the first step in being mature and removing the log from my own eye? What if I chance an arm and overlook a transgression?
And what if he does that too? What if he humbly considers where he might improve while stubbornly refusing to cower to screech mobs? What if he looks past all the condemnation and sees a bunch of people who have just never actually thought through this issue- a bunch of people who would welcome him into their churches with open arms if he walked through the door?
What if all men knew that we were disciples of Jesus Christ by our love for one another?
Tonight at 8 EST I will be talking about all of this live. I hope you’ll join me and bring your questions and comments.
P.S. thanks again to @tgtengage for hosting this debate. I’m also tagging a few folks who I think will want to see this post- @HeraldOfPurity @LizzieMarbach @TheMcGloneCode @igarglewithfire @farmingandJesus
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
