"If [our definition of heresy] is unwatched, it turns into radical sectarianism. If it is unwatched in the other direction, it turns into pomomush."

I got around to reading the blog post this morning, and my reaction to this paragraph was http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing017.gif . This is SO not funny and quite hilarious at the same time.

Tullian Tchividjian is the pastor of Coral Ridge, which oversees Knox Seminary, which just hired Bruce Waltke, the theistic evolutionist, because he resigned from RTS, because his position on evolution was very similar to that of C.S. Lewis, who is everybody’s hero, including mine, and the aforementioned RTS employs John Frame, who is a stalwart of the faith, but has views on worship styles that I find discordant with mine, but he had to leave Westminster West, which has an R2K thing going, and Scott Clark there at Westminster West is on a jag against me because I deny justification by faith alone, which I don’t, but that’s another discussion, and even though he is in the URC he is very concerned about this frenetic virus (FV) spreading in the PCA, whose major rock star right now is Tim Keller, who is okay with women deacons, which I oppose, but John Piper is willing to work with Keller, which shouldn’t be surprising, because he was also willing to work with me, even though I met Mark Driscoll once when he was in college at Washington State University. Still with me?

Looking forward to a Part 2 if he writes one, especially if he covers the idea of learning from books written by people who are not in ‘our camp’… or even atheists. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif

While Wilson obviously identifies what has already been identified by multitudes, yet with some spoofing, this statement to me stands out as the barometer by which to anticipate the direction of Wilson’s further treatment of the topic:

The problem is a thorny one, and it is an enormously practical problem.

Wilson is a technician at arguing that what you see isn’t really there rather, what is there is what he will tell you is there it’s just that you don’t see it or understand…quite yet. I predict he will (and already has) set the groundwork for his further response in a certain obfuscation, philosophical articulation and eventual doubt on such certainties with an element of shame thrown in for those that are certain of their boundaries.

Why? Because Doug Wilson himself enjoys coloring outside of the theological lines and what better opportunity than this to attempt to redraw or question such demarcations so as to include himself, if not realistically at least constructively, within instead of outside the new considerations.

Yes it (separation) isn’t always a simple matter but beginning his approach with the contextual claim that it is “an enormously practical problem” when I have seen it function with great clarity and practicality tells me Wilson will skip these realities or minimize them in his argument and settle onto his narrative rather singlemindedly.

This is one of those issues that I don’t believe can be ‘settled’. Separation means different things to different people, and especially on matters of conscience folks are going to separate to different degrees on different issues. While I am against the idea that ‘anything goes’, which a ‘practical’ argument often seems to suggest, there simply is no way to get everyone to toe the same line. IMHO, of course.

I just can’t avoid chuckling though, when folks get to foot-stomping and hair-tearing about who is ‘fellowshipping’ with whom. I’d like to see a definition of ‘fellowship’ that everyone can agree on, then maybe we’d know what ‘separation’ is supposed to look like. I can only be certain of those boundaries of separation and fellowship for myself- I couldn’t in a million years feel confident about setting boundaries for someone else.