Should we give the middle finger to idolatry, Doug?

A breakdown of Doug Wilson's defense of the recent NSA ad with the middle finger to idolatry.

Prologue

I remain a friend of Moscow and all its ventures to build Christian culture and to fight against the rising secular and pagan worldview.  I liked 98% of the NSA ad, and would recommend the school to friends.

However.  

(A critique of each section of Doug's post here.  The ad is here.)

"First, What it Was"

It doesn't help to say it was just a nano-second, and that we'd just be WILLING to go there (use the f-bomb).  If you're willing to go there, and show it, it's as bad as going there.  Showing the picture at all is as good as saying "eff you."

"Where We and Our Critics Disagree"
Doug bifurcates between friends of the college, and those out to get them. Respondents are effeminate wusses, library ladies, and sob sisters; or we are masculine, faithful, fighting friends. Most are in the middle, in neither camp. He is much more sensitive to those out to get them, and I don't discount there are many enemies of his doing that. But there are many like me who don't want to give Nate a pass, and also are not effeminate wusses. This is an ad hominem fallacy on Doug's part. (Any critics are sob sisters.) Also, in this section Doug downplays the gesture: "we didn't actually say the word out loud." This is casuistry. Finally, Doug plays the "who will fight?" card. If you criticize using the f-bomb you aren't willing to fight, in his view. Non sequitur. I've seen this before from him, first hand: if you don't agree with him, you're unwilling to put on your "big boy pants." He quotes Judges 15:11, but Samson and other judges never used the f-bomb, or used the enemy's sinful tactics against them.

"I'll Tell You What's Problematic"
Doug's critique of Strachan falls flat. Just because Strachan positively reviewed a film with several f-bombs in it, doesn't make it inconsistent to critique Christian platforms that PRODUCE it. His reference to "Evangellyfish" also doesn't fly, as Doug didn't use the f-bomb in it. I wouldn't call Doug a grifter, but the ad was definitely made to get attention. To say his critics are out for attention is just to siphon criticism off Moscow onto their critics.

"The Heart of the Difficulty"

This is a decent section, though it depends on inward intent. I believe Doug's intent is sincere and that he is not seeking fame for its own sake. He is seeking attention for a godly purpose. But he assumes his critics are seeking fame in an ungodly manner, which is uncharitable of him. Maybe they actually have a substantial case to consider. Assuming it is not so displays a lack of humility, uncharacteristic of the Doug I know. (I liked his appeal to DeYoung being our next standard bearer.)

Overall, I'd say including the middle finger gesture violates Scripture. We want to renounce idolatry like we saw in the Paris Olympics opening ceremony, but not say "eff you" to it. This tiny portion of the ad was a play to ungodly hatred of wickedness, which we ought to reject.

I urge you: reject both the wickedness itself, and the ungodly, hate-filled response to it.