Live peaceably with all men

Sage advice from Ben Merkle at Aristeia,

I’ve found Romans 12:18 to be an incredibly freeing passage. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.” It’s that honest disclaimer at the beginning—“If it is possible, as much as it depends on you...” When there is something that you can do to make peace, you do it. You go the extra mile to smooth things over. But there will be times when there will be no peace, when others are groundlessly angry with you and they refuse to be appeased. And when that happens, you sleep easy. Because it is beyond your control and not your problem.

Remember that when David marched forward to fight Goliath, his courage was considered by his brothers to be pride and insolence (1 Sam. 17:28). Joseph’s faithful service to Potiphar was reported by Potiphar’s wife as attempted rape (Gen. 39:14). John the Baptist was called demon-possessed and Jesus was called a drunk (Luk. 7:33-34). Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what you do, they are going to be angry with you.  And if your heart is right with God, you can shrug your shoulders and walk on.

It’s not an excuse to not care about others. If there is something that you can do to bring about peace, you do it. But if nothing can be done about it, then don’t worry about it and don’t let it faze you. There are giants to be killed.

Context in a sound-bite culture

I have been reading the furore concerning Jared Wilson posting a quote by Doug Wilson (not related) about sexuality in marriage. Jared was attempting to explain the success of 50 shades of Grey and thought Doug's comment from Fidelity published in 1999. Doug writes:

A final aspect of rape that should be briefly mentioned is perhaps closer to home. Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours.

The book Fidelity: What It Means to Be a One-Woman Man can be found here.

A lot of words have been said in the outrage, not all of them with comprehension. As common in our sound-bite culture, sentences and even isolated words do not need context, and everything written has the audience of the entire world in view.

As a result, offended people assume the worst and accuse the offender of all manner of wickedness. This is obvious of the blog posts condemning Doug Wilson, none of them have read the book in question, but more so, they do not appear to have read him otherwise.

Reading the book is important because it gives context. Perhaps Jared thought the phenomenon of 50 Shades of Grey gave enough context. Perhaps it does, perhaps not. Though the ability of people to isolate words and ignore sentences makes me concerned whether context is even helpful for some. The reason the second (reading the author) is important is you gain understanding of how a writer thinks. Much the same as you gain an understanding of you friends. If someone says something ambiguous a close friend may be able to clarify what he meant because he knows how he thinks, even if he does not agree with him. That why a friend might say, "No he would have meant this," or, "Yes, he can be obnoxious," or even, "He is being intentionally ambiguous."

Unlike many of the commentators I have read Wilson's book Fidelity, and several others, and his blog for some time. So when I read some of what is being written it doesn't read true as I know Doug (from his writing). Of course I know him imperfectly as he is not a friend and I only know him thru his writing. Nevertheless, his ideas are recognisable.

For example, some opposed to complementarianism disparage the idea that women should submit to men in the church; clearly they are not familiar with Doug's writing because he would deny a wife should submit to any man other than her husband.

Ironically we get those opposed to Doug saying that bondage like behaviour may be acceptable if both partners agree, and Doug saying that even with consent it is unacceptable because God forbids it.

One may retort that a reader may not be expected to know an author that well to read his works and, after all, words have meaning. Well yes, and no. It is all contextual. Words have meaning, and a semantic range. Sentences have meaning more meaning due to more context. A book has more context, and a writer even more context than a single book. It is possible for an author to be misunderstood by everyone, this is an authorial problem and maybe he should modify his construct. But when he is understood by some people and misunderstood by different people then there may be a readership issue.

Which brings us to intended audiences: some subjects are best left unspoken at different times and places; yet that a veteran disdains any reminder of his traumatic duty does not mean that war cannot be discussed by anyone else. On the contrary, war needs to be discussed by many people. It is false to think all our language has to be acceptable to all people at all times. I might curb myself for someone's weakness, but he doesn't get to let his weakness control all people. Related to this is the problem of finding offence in generics rather than specifics. I read a great deal of material, much of which I think is at least partially wrong. The errors are often significant, they represent wrong ways of thinking about the world and influence other readers toward the same errors. I find this frustrating, and damaging, but not insulting. It is not directed specifically at me. With published material we can read or not read a book as per our desire. Finding offence at material that is written generically seems unwise, insecure, and is generally a problem of the offended.

It is also important to distinguish between what someone advocates and what you think their ideology implies. It is important what we believe, and we are answerable for what we teach others; still claiming ideas are dangerous because you think they cause an effect is very different to claiming a man desires or advocates such an outcome. Objections to what your opponent says because you perceive it damaging is a long way from them advocating evil. Sure, false teaches should be rebuked, and sometimes rhetoric can be responded to with rhetoric; but when there is genuine debate, it is much easier to slander your opponent than delve into the issues.

Which brings us to the a fundamental difference in the debate which is egalitarianism and complementarianism in marriage and the church. The real opponent for many is complementarianism, and it seems to me in some ways the outrage is being used to bypass engaging the issue. The issue does need to be engaged. For all the discussion about sameness in the bed and lack of any personal perverse desire we are still left with the phenomenon of 50 Shades of Grey, written by a woman and purchased in the millions by women. Even if you think Doug's explanation is incorrect, you still need some explanation.

---

Posts for your reading interest

Approve

• The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc. Jared Wilson
• Shades Of Outrage Jared Wilson
• Cloacina, Goddess of Sewers Doug Wilson
• Flatter My Heart, Three-Person'd God... Doug Wilson
• Probably Not! She Thundered Doug Wilson
• Them’s Fightin’ Words Rebecca (Doug's daughter)
• Splashing into it again! Rebecca
• Daddy Issues Rachel (Doug's daughter)

Neutral

• On Triggering and the Triggered, Part 1 Alastair Roberts
• Sex! Outrage! The Internet! Doug Wilson, Rachel Held Evans, and The Gospel Coalition Caryn Rivadeneira

Disapprove

• The Gospel Coalition, sex, and subordination Rachel Held Evans
• Some final thoughts on The Gospel Coalition, sex, and submission Rachel Held Evans
• Take it Down Scot McKnight
• Sex is What I do WITH my Wife, Not TO my Wife: A Response to the Wilsons at TGC Michael F. Bird
• 50 Shades Of Circling The Wagons Eric R
• "Benign" Christian Patriarchy and 50 Shades of Grey: A Response to Jared Wilson Eric Reitan
• Sex, Authority/Submission, and Remarkable Insensitivity Chaplain Mike
• The Writer’s Burden Dianna E. Anderson
• Rape: A Punishment for Egalitarians? Sarah Over the Moon
• Marital Rape? Doug Wilson on Dominance and Submission in the Marriage Bed Libby Anne
• Doug Wilson, The Gospel Coalition, and Sanctified Rape Culture Grace

Ridiculously expensive iPhone

Luxury phone goes for an obscene amount of money.

It has a gold casing with over 500 diamonds. The carrying case is made of platinum and gems.

I don't think I would (I hope I wouldn't) bother with this, even if I considered £6,000,000 small change. Why was this made? Who would want one?

The principle of intentional vagueness

It is said that Scripture is perspicuous, that the Bible is easy to understand. And it is, in general. Much of the narrative can be comprehended. The poetry is frequently accessible. This is not to say that we find it easy to understand the why of what we read.

I think much of Scripture is perspicuous, at least at the surface level. There is much that is difficult to understand as well. One may need to dig deeper to grasp what is being said and why, and the full depths of Scripture may be indeed difficult to plumb.

As well as this depth, or perhaps part of it, is what I see as a principle of intentional vagueness. There are parts that are difficult to grasp but it seems that, at times, this is intentional.

Some of what is difficult may be due to cultural differences. We don't come to the Bible with underlying suppositions that the authors and immediate hearers did. But there is an indication that God intends for some things not to be immediately apparent. There are several examples of this.

Prophecy at times seems to be this way. Not that prophecy is not specific, but it may discuss an issue with no or little spatial or chronological clues. So Isaiah gives prophecies about the Messiah as a suffering servant and a reigning king. While it may be difficult for the hearers to meld these issues, it does make sense with what we now know about death and resurrection of Jesus, his position currently, and his return to rule.

Jesus also said things that were intentionally difficult to understand. He specifically stated that he spoke in parables

so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.' (Luke 8)

It is not just that there are things that are hard to understand, rather that God intends for them to be hard to understand.

A complaint from infidels is, Why is the Bible not clearer in places. Leaving aside the fact it may be clear to culturally astute persons that pay attention to genre, at times the Bible does lack clarity. The question arises as to why.

I can think of a few reasons.

1. It creates interest. Leaving something hanging promotes a desire for its resolution. Why did he say that? What did he mean? Surely it can't be thus?
2. It distinguishes between those who wish to understand and those who do not. Enough information is given for genuine seekers, and the righteous to know and seek more; it leaves out enough information such that the uninterested, the mockers, and the fools can dismiss it.
3. It allows for prophecy such that those prior to the event struggle to fully grasp what is to happen and those after the event to recognise the amazing accuracy of the fulfilment.
4. It grows faith. We can and are encouraged to ask questions of Scripture, about what it means. But we will not understand everything. By seeing God's activity clearly in some areas of the Bible and finding him faithful, we can trust him to be faithful in areas we are yet to comprehend. Not that we won't grow in knowledge over time, we will; but we can never fully grasp everything. Vagueness reminds us that we can trust God with incomplete information.
   
   I don't mean the (false) claim that we should believe Scripture despite it being untrue; that we should have "faith" in things we otherwise "know" are not the case.
   

The Bible is not just a source of true information. Though it is true, and a worldview based on the Bible is the correct one. But God intends for people to follow him. We see that in the explanations around why Jesus spoke in parables.

Then the disciples came and said to [Jesus], “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,/
and you will indeed see but never perceive./
For this people's heart has grown dull,/
and with their ears they can barely hear,/
and their eyes they have closed,/
lest they should see with their eyes/
and hear with their ears/
and understand with their heart/
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Matthew 13)

This is a quote from Isaiah 6 where God sends Isaiah to the people. Paul also quotes it to some Jews in Rome who refused to believe the gospel (Acts 28). There seems to be a will by some men to refuse to accept the truth. If they had honest hearts and wanted to be part of the truth then they would turn to Jesus and he would heal them. Yet their hearts (wills) remain impervious to the truth and so Jesus speaks in parables and the secrets of heaven are not revealed to them.

There is enough in the Bible for a believer to study a lifetime and more. There is enough in the Bible (and world) to condemn the unbeliever, yet enough difficulty to allow for the mockers to reject it and instead choose deception.