Doug Wilson On “Creation Law”

In a discussion on Leviticus & Homosexuality. Doug Wilson appeals to the decretal will of God & calls it Creation Law & attempts to draw a distinction between Creation Law & Redemption Law (Leviticus).

1. This is a Category Error on his part, insofar as the Decretal Will of God  (what Is as to the State of the Created Order) & the Moral Will of God (What Ought To Be) are two separate, yet intersecting domains).

2. Notice how he looks to the Decretal Will of God for Moral Law.   The story of Leviticus occurs after the Fall, so the implication is that Redemptive Law’s proper domain is a Post-Lapsarian world.   

One wonders why he doesn’t understand that if the Prelapsarian created order is a species of Law, then it is a species of Redemptive Law?   Think about it —- is there anywhere in the Bible where God’s Law, which comes to us in the form of a suzerain covenant — doesn’t serve a redemptive purpose? 

In the video hyperlinked above, the topic is “Leviticus on Homosexuality.”   In his own catechism on human sexuality, he writes, “ Such sexual activity is not the kind of thing that can ever culminate in a one flesh union. Inside the covenant, and between eligible participants, human sexuality is an expression of God’s creation design.” Wilson is a proponent of the tradition bound view on homosexuality.   The proponents of that particular view routinely argue that human sexuality must be understood as heteronormative & use texts like Genesis 2:22 - 24 to interpret “natural” in Romans 1:26 - 27 as “heteronormative,” & “against nature/unnatural” as “homosexual,” & then call homosexuals to repent accordingly.  Repentance is a redemptive activity.

The Moral Law of God has not changed.  In fact, as a proponent of the traditional view on homosexuality, Wilson points to the Creation Law as the Redemptive Law, ie the moral standard for all men & women (especially homosexuals) to follow - so the decretal will of God expressed in the pattern of creation serves a redemptive purpose.  

3.  This idea that he is trying to pass off as biblically sound reasoning is really just an exercise in the Naturalistic Fallacy— appealing to what Is for moral principles pertaining to what Ought To Be.  

When a homosexual appeals to his or her biogenetics to underwrite sexual ethics, we call that the Naturalistic Fallacy. When David Hume did the same thing with respect to his own psychology, we called that the Naturalistic Fallacy too.  However when Doug Wilson refers to the pattern of creation as a species of Moral Law, that is an instance of baptized reasoning — not what it really —- Special Pleading writ large. 

What does the Bible teach?  Romans 1:20 is crystal clear.  The purpose of the created order is to testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority.    This statement is at the core of an indictment of us all for suppressing the truth about God’s image & authority & supplanting God’s image & authority with any number of created images, including the human image — which is how the ancient peoples wound up with idols that had sexual characteristics & behaved like they (the ancient peoples) behaved.  

When you read “natural” in Romans 1:26 - 27, as “heteronormative,” that entails using/utilizing the created human image to do ethical reasoning in general & sexual ethics in particular — which is the **opposite** of what the Bible teaches.   

In addition, homosexuality isn’t the only set of ideas affected by this. 

The ancients did worship ethics (Faith) & sexual )& other sorts of) ethics out of images drawn from the created order.   Therefore, when “Creation Law” is used to form & shape worship ethics, this same reasoning process is used to underwrite ecclesiastical ethics that keep women out of the pulpit & sociopolitical ethics that rob women of their rights in the Home & in Government. On this view, the “natural” use of the man is said to be the use/utilization of the male, especially her husband, not just for sex but also for the de facto Pater Familias of the Home, the Church(es), & (Supreme, Hegemonic) Civil Authority in Government (& society at large).

What Romans 1:18 - 32 teaches also defines what Leviticus 18 teaches insofar as Leviticus 18 is case law & Romans 1:18 - 32 is didactic (teaching) commentary on Leviticus 18.

Leviticus 18:

Shema/Prologue (Lev. 18:1 - 5)

General & Specific Prohibitions (Lev.18: 6 -23) 

Document Clause, Witnesses, & Victory (Lev. 18: 24 - 30), which refers to statutes & rules & charges the people as witnesses & proclaims victory over the nations (& Israel should they behave like the nations)

Romans interprets Lev. 18 & vice versa.

Romans 1:18 - 32:

Paul is following the outline of Leviticus 18, following the form of a Hebraic lawsuit.

Shema and Decalogue (1:18 - 21) God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.

God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to His Law & Gospel.

Historical Prologue (1:22 - 23)

They suppressed God’s image & authority substituting their own, & made idols that looked & behaved like themselves.

Stipulations/Prohibitions (1:24 - 28)  In Canaan & Rome, people did heterosexual & homosexual sex for their gods.  At times they deployed animals too.  (Lev. 18: 6 - 23).  

Document Clause, Covenant Sanctions/Renewal & Witnesses, Victory (1: 29 - 32)

Kitchen sink immorality will lead to Rome’s burning, just as it did to Sodom, Egypt, Israel, Babylon, &tc.

The text is about how we are supposed to think/reason.  God’s created order testifies to His image & authority.   God indicts us for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with our own & other created images & reasoning accordingly.  When you teach that human anatomy, physiology, &/or psychology is a proper warrant for sexual ethics, you are teaching the opposite of what the Bible teaches.  

In addition, the 2 terms in 1 Corinthians 6 (which have their roots in Leviticus 18) because Leviticus 18 is not a condemnation of all homosexuality (as if God morally condemns & commends human behavior apart our internal motives, ie His personal evaluation & appraisal of the workings of our hearts & minds). Rather, Leviticus 18 (per Romans 1:18 - 32) condemns sexual activity done in the service of any number of pagan pseudodeities.

In other words, Romans 1:18 - 33 targets the way moral agents think in general & sexual ethics drawn from the human (&/or any other) image, especially sexual ethics that include the worship of one or more pagan pseudodeities.    Since Leviticus 18 is about cultic sexual activity (&/or inactivity, ie thoughts alone), the same is true of 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, & Jude.   

Doug Wilson’s views do not conform to the grammar & syntax of the Bible — and since he reasons (redemptive - historical) sexual ethics out of the pattern of creation, he is wrong about homosexuality & wrong about this Creation Law/Redemption Law distinction.  In truth “Creation Law” & its usage is just a synonym for Naturalistic or Quasi-Naturalistic Ethics/Ethical Reasoning.