Canon Press Literature

[A.Joseph]

Douglas Wilson is not Reformed. It’s all just a bit of a masquerade. Unordained, under no one’s authority but his own, Wilson is very far indeed from confessional Presbyterianism. And that’s just what you can see on the surface. Look at the man’s doctrine! He gets the gospel wrong. The gospel.

It is sad to see professing Christians expressing their admiration of such a man, whose views have been rightly condemned as heterodox.

“A breath of fresh air”? If you think Wilson is the antidote to the social decline, you’re in for trouble. Be wary, in your flight from the false gospel of woke evangelicalism, of falling into the pit of unbelief.

I totally agree. He’s a cult leader who throws money around and shines a spotlight on himself (as he buys devoted disciples).

He’s very Mark Driscollish. His appeal parallels Donald Trump with some Christian orthodoxy sprinkled in.

Do charges of plagiarism surprise me in the least? That’s probably the least of his problems.

That’s a hard pass….

 

[A.Joseph]

How many of these Reformed-type celebrity preachers are this way? Unordained with no accountability? Independent churches, independent ministries….

And how many get in trouble? Is this more common in baptists circles with high internet presence, the promotion of Calvinism and an interest in the culture wars (applying Calvinism to the culture war) ? Some do much good at some points obviously, but wonder who fits in these categories?

On the darker side would be Driscoll, Wilson, etc…. etc…. Do they all eventually go south?It’s not just that they are doing wrong.. but are also leaving themselves vulnerable and unprotected if they have nobody they are accountable to.

 

[retroGRAD3]

How many of these Reformed-type celebrity preachers are this way? Unordained with no accountability? Independent churches, independent ministries….

And how many get in trouble? Is this more common in baptists circles with high internet presence, the promotion of Calvinism and an interest in the culture wars (applying Calvinism to the culture war) ? Some do much good at some points obviously, but wonder who fits in these categories?

On the darker side would be Driscoll, Wilson, etc…. etc…. Do they all eventually go south?It’s not just that they are doing wrong.. but are also leaving themselves vulnerable and unprotected if they have nobody they are accountable to.

Make sure you don't overshoot your target. Aren't most baptist churches independent?

Also, there is much to criticize about Wilson and Driscoll, but make sure you don't get that information from places like Christianity Today. That organization is almost completely liberal and social justice infested. I would argue they aren't even a Christian organization anymore.

 

[ZackF]

Someone needs to keep track. Doug Wilson threads often are long but this one is 124 posts in 48 hours. Beep Beep!

 

[A.Joseph]

Make sure you don't overshoot your target. Aren't most baptist churches independent?

Also, there is much to criticize about Wilson and Driscoll, but make sure you don't get that information from places like Christianity Today. That organization is almost completely liberal and social justice infested. I would argue they aren't even a Christian organization anymore.

Thanks. I try to be balanced. I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations.

Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.
Culture & Consumerism? See politics and understand the incestuous bonds between big government and big industry and how it even spills over into big Eva and seminaries. Again, redeemable? Unlikely in many circumstances. Not all, but much of this is public info at this point…. Who is paying the bills? Who is appointed to leadership positions and what are they beholden to?

Keep all these things in view as far as motives and let it all take a back seat to God, sound doctrine, fellowship and family. We can’t get caught up in over compensating for the evils that abound. But we can remain grounded in truth and faithfulness. Does DougWil lead us there? I don’t think so. Do those obsessed with taking him down? No, they are just as distracted…. Move along I say

 

[Taylor]

I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations.

Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.

An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do those obsessed with taking him down? No, they are just as distracted…. Move along I say

As someone who is obsessed with taking him down, I'm not distracted. My number one focus is the classical doctrine of God.

 

[LilyG]

Unordained, under no one’s authority but his own, Wilson is very far indeed from confessional Presbyterianism

Yes, that is a big problem. How are his elders ordained? Does he hand-pick them himself?

 

[A.Joseph]

An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.

That depends. I once thought like you and then I came to understand that post-Pilgrim America is more Babylonian and secret society than Christian in its foundation. Once that point is grasped, you realize that the long standing power brokers are never going to relinquish their grand design and it includes the GOP…. The game is rigged. Media, News, Politics, Industry, Health, Natural Resources…. they ultimately control much of it. We can maintain local areas to a degree and we are still a rational majority (maybe?) but current events make a lot of sense when these things are considered….

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/09/14/masons-and-the-making-of-america

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to Bishop James Madison, 31 January 1800

From Thomas Jefferson to Bishop James Madison, 31 January 1800

founders.archives.gov

Who's Afraid of John Calvin? Answer: Thomas Jefferson

The Virginian founding father and arch-liberal feared that Calvinists, not Catholics, would be the undoing of his experiment in political liberalism.

mereorthodoxy.com

 

[Taylor]

I once thought like you and then I came to understand that post-Pilgrim America is more Babylonian and secret society than Christian in its foundation. Once that point is grasped, you realize that the long standing power brokers are never going to relinquish their grand design and it includes the GOP…. The game is rigged. Media, News, Politics, Industry, Health, Natural Resources…. they ultimately control much of it.

I agree with all of this, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. The current state of affairs has never and can never have any bearing on what a Christian should be doing. Ought is a different question than is, and the latter can never dictate the former.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I just don’t think politics and culture wars are worthy or even faithful motivations.

Politics? Recognize the system is rotten and unredeemable.
Culture & Consumerism? See politics and understand the incestuous bonds between big government and big industry and how it even spills over into big Eva and seminaries. Again, redeemable? Unlikely in many circumstances. Not all, but much of this is public info at this point…. Who is paying the bills? Who is appointed to leadership positions and what are they beholden to?

Keep all these things in view as far as motives and let it all take a back seat to God, sound doctrine, fellowship and family. We can’t get caught up in over compensating for the evils that abound. But we can remain grounded in truth and faithfulness.

An apolitical Christian is an oxymoron. The most basic Christian creed, Χπριστος κυριος, is a political statement. The book of Revelation is, among other things, a strongly political book. Politics is an inescapable reality in this age. Christians who pretend to be against or above politics are therefore in fact making a political statement as well as taking a political stance, just not a good one.

Greetings, @A.Joseph & @Taylor

I haven't been following this thread very closely, so what I have to say should be considered my thoughts that may only vaguely have to do with your argumentation.

I have been thinking of everything in black-and-white terms for the last few days. Darkness and light have been on my mind.

Of all the things modern man-centered-man thinks important, politics is numero uno. That alone is enough reason for Christians to collide head-on with man's politics as God in all its manifestations. In all modern politics that I am aware of, man is seen as the highest authority in all matters of law and ethics. Remember, all law is religious in nature. It's which religion it looks to that makes all the difference. Therefore I believe that Christians must be involved in politics in earnest.

But the Christian mindset in all things political must be like Augustine of Hippo's City of God and the City of Man. We do not physically separate the two, but the two cities are very different and radically opposed one to another.

This is a brief excerpt from an essay titled:

Two Cities, Two Mindsets
By Lydia Sheldon​

St. Augustine used an illustration of two cities in trying to explain the distinction between the Church and the world. Two loves have formed two cities, he claimed. The love of self has formed the earthly city; the love of God has formed the heavenly one. The earthly city is characterized by pride and self-aggrandizement, while those in the heavenly city honor God in all things, trusting only Him for all wisdom and giving glory to only Him. It's easy to see which city the Church should belong to, isn't it?​

We must never be satisfied with simply voting for the lesser of two evils. But the church must involve itself in politics by shining the Light of God's Holy Word on all man-centered politics. We should seek only two outcomes, and there is no middle ground between the two. The first and unwavering goal is to bring Light out of darkness by the conversion of those still in darkness. The second but equally important goal is for those who reject the light. That same Light that brings life to those who believe will increase the blindness, remove the power, and ultimately will burn to a crisp those who reject that light. There is no neutrality.

~~~~~~~​

John 1:4-7
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.

John 3:19-20
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

One Light - Two Outcomes​

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

 

[Pilgrim]

Well if Russell Moore is all we have to compare to..

Anything Wilson says can be found with more balance, more wisdom, and more clearly stated by orthodox writers. Why anyone would recommend Wilson on childrearing over Beeke is astounding. The man has weird idiosyncratic views on almost every subject of family life - I for one don't get the appeal, particularly when there is so much theological, ecclesiastical, and cultural baggage.

Its because Wilson OwNs ThE LiBs

 

[A.Joseph]

As someone who is obsessed with taking him down, I'm not distracted. My number one focus is the classical doctrine of God.

I don’t think you are obsessed with this one guy. And you aren’t coming from a right vs left cultural mindset. You aren’t looking to push the envelope in a progressive direction. I think you should be a comprehensive resource in all things to watch out for w/ Dougwil. Sounds like you are pretty qualified.

 

[Pilgrim]

Reasons for Wilson's resurgence in popularity despite what NAPARC et al said 15-20 years ago:

1. WOKENESS. Some of his antagonists, such as Ligon Duncan, are now seen as tainted (by some) by their association with and previous promotion of the likes of Jemar Tisby and other related things. (See also the comments above about Michael Horton and civil unions. The culture war in general is a factor.) You can include the COVID response to this too. For some reason, when Tom Ascol wanted to produce a film about the SJWs taking over the SBC, he couldn't find anyone in the whole wide world besides Moscow people to produce it, seemingly oblvious to or dismissive of the baggage. Then Ascol's assistant pastor ends up resigning and joining up with Moscow. Apologia Church (Jeff Durbin and James White) seem to be friendly with Wilson too.

2. Some who had been associated with FV attained a new respectability in the past decade via things like the Calvinist International and the Davenant Institute.

 

[A.Joseph]

Greetings, @A.Joseph & @Taylor

I haven't been following this thread very closely, so what I have to say should be considered my thoughts that may only vaguely have to do with your argumentation.

I have been thinking of everything in black-and-white terms for the last few days. Darkness and light have been on my mind.

Of all the things modern man-centered-man thinks important, politics is numero uno. That alone is enough reason for Christians to collide head-on with man's politics as God in all its manifestations. In all modern politics that I am aware of, man is seen as the highest authority in all matters of law and ethics. Remember, all law is religious in nature. It's which religion it looks to that makes all the difference. Therefore I believe that Christians must be involved in politics in earnest.

But the Christian mindset in all things political must be like Augustine of Hippo's City of God and the City of Man. We do not physically separate the two, but the two cities are very different and radically opposed one to another.

This is a brief excerpt from an essay titled:

Two Cities, Two Mindsets
By Lydia Sheldon​

St. Augustine used an illustration of two cities in trying to explain the distinction between the Church and the world. Two loves have formed two cities, he claimed. The love of self has formed the earthly city; the love of God has formed the heavenly one. The earthly city is characterized by pride and self-aggrandizement, while those in the heavenly city honor God in all things, trusting only Him for all wisdom and giving glory to only Him. It's easy to see which city the Church should belong to, isn't it?​

We must never be satisfied with simply voting for the lesser of two evils. But the church must involve itself in politics by shining the Light of God's Holy Word on all man-centered politics. We should seek only two outcomes, and there is no middle ground between the two. The first and unwavering goal is to bring Light out of darkness by the conversion of those still in darkness. The second but equally important goal is for those who reject the light. That same Light that brings life to those who believe will increase the blindness, remove the power, and ultimately will burn to a crisp those who reject that light. There is no neutrality.

~~~~~~~​

John 1:4-7
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.

John 3:19-20
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

One Light - Two Outcomes​

2 Thessalonians 1:5-10
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Pagan societies are a great contrast where the light of the gospel can truly shine. I don’t expect anyone to understand the sanctity of life or marriage, etc. without knowing the true gospel of Jesus Christ. So the church needs to remain faithful in doctrine and practice, and maybe it will spill into other areas of the greater society. But that is the order - there are no short-cuts. The holy cannot blend with the profane like is done in the RCC. US government needs a radical transformation where lies and deceit is not tolerated.

Doug Wilson may exude smug superiority (in his tactical response to secular society) while some others take their cue from secular society. I know it’s hard to not get caught in the mire myself. But at the end of the day, only Christ can turn evil into good. I hope His light will shine brightly especially as events take a darker turn.

 

[Mac]

This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”

 

[Mac]

This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”

I feel like the answer is 100% yes but I want to Consider all angles

 

[Taylor]

…the church needs to remain faithful in doctrine and practice, and maybe it will spill into other areas of the greater society. But that is the order - there are no short-cuts.

For the record, this is exactly what Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and others have taught, contrary to popular caricatures.

Regeneration, not revolution.

 

[Jack K]

I do think part of the reason the faction from Moscow, ID has newfound acceptance is that a church's posture toward the wider culture has become, for many American believers, the new orthodoxy. It used to be that we judged and selected a church or a book to read based on doctrinal fidelity and Christian practice. Now, believers are more likely to pick based on cultural/political posture.

Should our posture toward the culture be combative? Conciliatory? Withdrawing? Engaging and winsome? American believers have strong disagreements that have been made even sharper by progressive pushes, the Trump campaign/presidency, and Covid concerns/frustrations. Many people believe the cultural situation has become dire. Churches that once found unity under doctrine and Christian practice are now realigning based on cultural posture. To many, it's become the test of orthodoxy that overrules other considerations.

On one side, it shows up as: "So what if we are neglecting to gather for worship; we're showing our neighbors that we care about their Covid concerns." (Posture toward the culture comes first.)

On the other side, it shows up as: "So what if Donald Trump is sexually crass; he's fighting against wokeness." Or: "So what if Federal Vision is theologically in error; at least they're standing up to the progressive and feminist wave." (Again, posture toward the culture comes first.)

So, to answer Mac's question... I suspect it may not be as simple as telling people to set aside those books due to the possibility of theological error. That kind of pastoral counsel will have to be accompanied by ongoing teaching about the importance of doctrinal fidelity in a world that increasingly feels cultural alignment is more important. Many of your people are probably consuming political commentary much more often than they are opening their Bibles. You're going to have to remember this as you proceed, and shepherd the flock with this greater danger in mind.

 

[ZackF]

Great analysis Jack.

 

[Eyedoc84]

This thread escalated pretty quickly! I do have a question related to my original post…would anyone be concerned about the continued use of Canon Press materials in the church body and actually link that concern to Federal Vision? Meaning…is it valid to say, as a session, “we will no longer use Canon Press books for theological concerns related to Federal Vision theology?”

Back to my first post, my concern is the Canon Press stuff becoming a gateway drug to imbibing all of Wilson. But I don’t think the answer is book burning. Find out what your people are liking about the books they are reading and steer them toward better stuff. Getting into the FV weeds may be an unnecessary distraction.

Just as big of a concern as the FV stuff is the undermining of authority that Moscow has fostered particularly in the past few years.

 

[Taylor]

I do think part of the reason the faction from Moscow, ID has newfound acceptance is that a church's posture toward the wider culture has become, for many American believers, the new orthodoxy. It used to be that we judged and selected a church or a book to read based on doctrinal fidelity and Christian practice. Now, believers are more likely to pick based on cultural/political posture.

Should our posture toward the culture be combative? Conciliatory? Withdrawing? Engaging and winsome? American believers have strong disagreements that have been made even sharper by progressive pushes, the Trump campaign/presidency, and Covid concerns/frustrations. Many people believe the cultural situation has become dire. Churches that once found unity under doctrine and Christian practice are now realigning based on cultural posture. To many, it's become the test of orthodoxy that overrules other considerations.

On one side, it shows up as: "So what if we are neglecting to gather for worship; we're showing our neighbors that we care about their Covid concerns." (Posture toward the culture comes first.)

On the other side, it shows up as: "So what if Donald Trump is sexually crass; he's fighting against wokeness." Or: "So what if Federal Vision is theologically in error; at least they're standing up to the progressive and feminist wave." (Again, posture toward the culture comes first.)

So, to answer Mac's question... I suspect it may not be as simple as telling people to set aside those books due to the possibility of theological error. That kind of pastoral counsel will have to be accompanied by ongoing teaching about the importance of doctrinal fidelity in a world that increasingly feels cultural alignment is more important. Many of your people are probably consuming political commentary much more often than they are opening their Bibles. You're going to have to remember this as you proceed, and shepherd the flock with this greater danger in mind.

I also think many Christians are realizing that the Faith is inseparable from politics. I once heard a podcast say, “There are no theological liberals in the PCA, only some political liberals.” I am coming more and more to believe that this sentiment is nonsense. Political liberals are theological liberals. Sure, they might be okay in theology proper and Christology, but it’s hard to believe that someone who thinks abortion is acceptable, that racism is an inescapable plight inherent to skin color, and that stealing from the rich to give to the poor on threat of government force is a social good, do so because of theological conservatism.

In general, you show me someone who is a political liberal, and I will show you someone who, if a professed Christian, is almost certainly a theological liberal. Poor politics very frequently reveals poor doctrine.

 

[A.Joseph]

I also think many Christians are realizing that the Faith is inseparable from politics. I once heard a podcast say, “There are no theological liberals in the PCA, only some political liberals.” I am coming more and more to believe that this sentiment is nonsense. Political liberals are theological liberals. Sure, they might be okay in theology proper and Christology, but it’s hard to believe that someone who thinks abortion is acceptable, that racism is an inescapable plight inherent to skin color, and that stealing from the rich to give to the poor on threat of government force is a social good, do so because of theological conservatism.

In general, you show me someone who is a political liberal, and I will show you someone who, if a professed Christian, is almost certainly a theological liberal. Poor politics very frequently reveals poor doctrine.

Good points but just let me build on that.

Trump was never a Christian conservative. I think people got behind him to see a corrupt system exposed but instead of draining the swamp it got emboldened. (This is the last time I use conservative to describe Christianity cause that’s too often used to dismiss Christian orthodoxy and the practical application thereof).

Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal are not Christian labels or distinctions. I do believe the Baptists get caught up in this. Calvinism was often lumped in with conservatism in Baptists circles but then it became a political target to liberalize even in Presbyterian circles with Keller and obviously a century before.

So, since Christianity doesn’t change and God doesn’t change (although there have been many blind spots for Christians throughout the century), the embrace of progressivism in Christianity is pretty much anti-orthodox. Which is why churches like the PCUSA are irrelevant and dying.

So the seductions are on many sides. The GOP-mainstream political conservatives are anything but. Trump was at best a status-quo moderate whose GOP-affiliation and foundation was ultimately globalist. So the bar was set pretty low due to the state of our American culture in the year 2016.

So at the end of the day, no party or social-political movement reflects confessional Calvinism. And, in fact, many reformed churches and denominations have embraced politics over doctrine. When the liberal churches do it, liberalism is their religion. When traditionalists/confessionalists do it, they often are getting off mission.

I think there should be a better linkage between like a Reformed Forum (covering theology-church history-philosophy) and a truthxchange (covering culture-philosophy/psychology-theology) in which the reality of ‘nothing new under the sun’ is kept in view with proper perspective and religious orthodoxy always tied to it. Just an example. We should be more unified and on the same page on these matters.

I can’t name one politician in all of America who consistently shares all our values and have not sold out to a plural society instituted on behalf of a Luciferean vision for all humanity. …. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/sen-ben-sasse.99040/#post-1214617

I’m open to those who want to unify better on these matters. But we keep screwing up.

Who is a truly solid source on these matters these days? I can’t think of any that are willing to cover all these bases without compromising anything? Sproul is the only guy that I knew that can cover all these areas soundly with zeal and inspire the Reformed masses while recruiting the non-Reformed.

 

[A.Joseph]

….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….

 

[Jeri Tanner]

….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….

It always comes back to the impossibility of such government apart from the work of God in a society. Such government will only happen in a society that is submitted to Christ, which means the visible church is committed to Christ, being revived and reformed, Sabbath-keeping, Psalm singing, returned to the old paths. God using the earnest cries of his people to bring about revival and reformation in the church via the raising up and preaching of her ministers.

 

[RamistThomist]

….. I think we need a political party and/or coalition that is removed from the 2-party system with humble, mature minds leading the way. How big could that tent be and could it lead, at the least, to faithful civil engagement? I have no idea of the feasibility of such an undertaking….

I can answer the feasibility part for you: there is none.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Paradox theology is a Van Tilian doctrine is it not?
I'm hardly an expert on Wilson, but from the outside peering in it seems sometimes that Wilson is taken to task for things that others are given a pass for, or at least criticized more mildly. This is a good example. When Van Til comes up no one says "you can never take what he says at face value" or calls him a snake. At worst he is called confusing. Justification is too I think, since we're happy to read and learn from many church fathers with as bad or worse of formulas on it. I don't say this to diminish these issues, because they are certainly serious matters, but I do wonder if we're applying the same standard across the board.

Oddly, I was re-reading this thread and came across a comment from myself: "I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value." So, it would appear that at least someone has suggested that you cannot take what CVT said at face value.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Oddly, I was re-reading this thread and came across a comment from myself: "I am not sure that you can ever take anything written by a believer in Paradox Theology at face-value." So, it would appear that at least someone has suggested that you cannot take what CVT said at face value.

"Great minds think alike." Once again, Reformed Covenanter and Daniel Ritchie have arrived at the same sound conclusion

 

[jwright82]

I'm not sure what politics or CVT have to do with Wilson's theology? The danger, as I see it, is his stance on culture is informed by his stance on Evangelicalism (which he sees as weak both theologically and culturally). His overreaction theologically with the objectivity of the covenant is in part what drives his stuff on culture. I'm not saying you can't be strong on culture and theologically orthodox, you can. But how many lay people might ignorantly agree with his assessment of the problem and then think his "solution" is the only option.
I don't know if this is happening or not but its seems like a natural trajectory to me. Anyway just my opinion. I highly doubt if CVT were alive and competent he would side with Wilson's theology. Not withstanding his defense of Shepherd, with which he was old and not competent but wrong.
One last thing I am highly skeptical of tying Orthodoxy to any one political party, as if there're not all corrupt. Even a so called Reformed political party will still have to "play" the corrupt game of politics, if you play in a pig pen you will get muddy.