“On Not Being Scabrous”

A second issue has to do with the common assumption that anything that is lawful in one medium is lawful in another. But I don’t believe that this is the case at all. Some things should be strictly limited in how they are communicated. Trevin Wax said this in one of his posts: ‘If a movie version of the book of Genesis were made, it wouldn’t be for minors.’ This is quite true, and this means that to write a novel that contained the same level of description as Genesis does would be lawful to do. ‘And behold, it was Leah.’ The same with the Song of Solomon. Writing and publishing erotic poetry is clearly within bounds for believers. But do we get to make Song of Solomon: The Movie? Not a chance. Do we get to film those portions of Ezekiel where we see the Assyrians who are hung like a donkey and ejaculate like horses (Eze. 23:20)? We don’t just look at the content of what is said — we must also take care to learn how it is said. The media matter. Ezekiel can do what he does with words, and we can imitate him in our use of words, everything else being equal. But if we made a movie out of it, then we are clearly being scabrous.
Douglas Wilson

8 Comments

  1. Note to Doug: you are not Ezekiel. You are at best a creepy, unsatisfied, old man who writes breathlessly about topless, imaginary movie stars in the same post.
    And, by the way you aren’t Paul either. You are the Peter Pan of pastors — forever fourteen surrounded by a group of similarly Lost Boys.
    Rose Huskey

    1. I wouldn’t call him Peter Pan, if only because it feeds his ego. He’s more like Captain Hook. I think it’s always best to address The Doug with as much ridicule as is humanly possible to dredge up, because he really is a silly sod when it comes down to it.

  2. I don’t think “Pastor”Wilson would be able to write about the proper way to trim the willow tree in my yard (I’ve no doubt he’s an expert on willow tree trimming, since he’s an expert on everything and anything) without somehow finding a way to mention breasts. I guess some pastors are leg men, some might appreciate derrieres, but obviously The Douglas has a female chestological area fixation.

    1. @CNW: You’re right. He went all booby in this post before he went jackass:

      However, if an actress takes off her blouse and bra, she is not pretending to be immodest, she is being immodest. Allow me to imitate the apostle Paul, and ask you to bear with me for just a sec (2 Cor. 11:1). If an actress named Suzy Jones is playing a woman named Molly Murphy and in the course of the story takes off her top, does the viewer know what Suzy’s breasts look like, or what Molly’s breasts look like? Well — kind of both, right? But Suzy is a real woman in the real world, and detailed appreciation of what she looks like undressed is not something that any man not married to her has any right to have — much less millions of men not married to her. . . .

      Definitely a pattern here, just as with his homosexual obsession.

  3. Any excuse to see, think about or talk about boobs will do for Doug. And if he inspires someone to “engage the culture” as a film critic and, after enough exposure to moral sludge and compromise by compromise he or she commits adultery or otherwise goes moral trainwreck? And counts Doug as a factor in public? Just one more evil intolerista to be dismissed (or worse).

  4. I went to a church in the past where the pastor got involved in a wierd movement and started teaching some bizarre things from the pulpit. The thing I found most incredible was that when I asked other people what they thought about these things, most had not noticed them at all (not sure what they were thinking about during church) and of those who did, they had widely varying ideas of what “he really meant”. I realized that the average person in the pew was listening through their own filters. Each thing the pastor said was run through the “what I would like this to mean” filter. Each person’s was different.

    When I look at the convoluted things DW writes & teaches, I have to wonder what his listeners are actually hearing? Even to a person who is trying to understand what he’s actually trying to say, he makes it difficult.

    A bad idea dressed up with lots of fancy words and complex sentence structure is still a bad idea.

    Proverbs 10:19
    “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable”

    1. If you read the comment responses on Doug’s blog, you will find that his followers and sycophants are hearing all the same hackneyed crap that any other cult following hears:

      1) Us vs. Them;
      2) The only unforgivable sin is questioning Supreme Leader;
      3) If Supreme Leader appears to be wrong, see rule #2;
      4) Black is Black and White is White, except when Supreme Leader cleverly makes a wordsmithy argument explaining how in certain cases White is really Black, or Black only appears Black but is really White, or Black and White are actually The Same Thing;
      5) The Apostle Paul teaches that we should punch back twice as hard, which contradicts Jesus’ admonishment to turn the other cheek: see rule #3
      6) If you leave you will be ostracized, if you call attention to our transgressions publicly you will be destroyed: see rule #2;

      etc.

      I have to wonder if Doug Wilson is secretly a Scientologist. The only thing Gold Base has which Moscow doesn’t have yet is a spiked fence.

    2. Dash — I think you’re on to something. The occult and non-Christian cults have deep roots in Moscow. For example, a huckster named Frank Bruce Robinson founded a cult called Psychiana in Moscow. Like Christ Church, it was a mail-order business masquerading as a ministry. I have more to say on the subject but I’ll hold it for now.

Comments are closed.