"In Praise of the CREC" by Uriesou Brito

Status
Not open for further replies.
NaphtaliPress said:
Perhaps (speculation; I like Murray on worship), the Lord allows even the best of his saints to err to keep us humble and watchful?
Click to expand...

Yes, point taken. I am not disputing Professor Murray's self-evident Christian piety, and I am also just after reading R. L. Dabney making the same point regarding those who advocated for instrumental music. (Ironically, I also have some serious issues with that author as well.)
 
As far as whether Wilson has repented of federal vision, it appears to me that he has engaged in partial repentance. He didn't used to affirm active obedience, and now he does, which strikes me as a real improvement, but he undoubtedly still holds to many of his old FV ideas, like baptismal regeneration and weird formulations on faith that at the very least do not as clearly define saving faith as is expected from a reformed pastor.
 
Charles Johnson said:
As far as whether Wilson has repented of federal vision, it appears to me that he has engaged in partial repentance. He didn't used to affirm active obedience, and now he does, which strikes me as a real improvement, but he undoubtedly still holds to many of his old FV ideas, like baptismal regeneration and weird formulations on faith that at the very least do not as clearly define saving faith as is expected from a reformed pastor.
Click to expand...
That is probably the most charitable view of things, but is there clear recanting and apologizing, seeking to undo damage done by error? That would appear more like repentance rather than just a change of views in the right direction for whatever reason. I'm not sure calling it impartial justifies the word unless some of that is present. If so, as was said in a thread last year on another Wilson issue, we should receive the news happily.
 
Last edited:
There is a segment of the Reformed world who seem to like angry characters who speak out against this or that instead of focusing on the love and tenderness of Christ. They define the faith by what they hate and detest rather than what they love. They do things to get attention (trying to act tough and catch fields on fire anyone) and they end up looking like bloviating windbags. I trust none of them. They have manufactured a certain "brand" that I do not like and which I don't think represents the character of Christ. Cigar...check. Beard...check... arrogance....check. Being a talented writer only goes so far when you are smug and pompous. Keep your stoopid publicity stunts. Instead of "owning the libs" they become a caricature of what the libs detest about the faith (and rightly so).

Also, anyone who says "Doug Wilson is the man" is not much of a man. I detest such fanbois.

That being said, I liked his book Future Men. In fact, much of what he writes is good. But of course, how much poison is too much? If I don't personally like somebody, it is hard to like their books or theology. And I sense that I'd like to slap this fella if I was in a room with him for more than a few minutes. But of course, my list of people I want to slap grows longer every day and is now a 10-volume work.

p.s. is Uriesou Brito a real name of a person? What nationality is that?

​

 
Last edited:
Pergamum said:
But of course, my list of people I want to slap grows longer every day and is now a 10-volume work.
Click to expand...

I get the sense that the literary feeling is mutual, only the list of people who want to slap you (in the kindest and most loving way possible) had now grown to a 50-volume work. :p
 
NaphtaliPress said:
I think you have done this before, but were you not a former fan of Wilson, read all his books, etc.? What changed it for you?
Click to expand...

I was newly married around 2008. My wife and I were not going to attend AAPC (and not just for theology reasons). We were going to a PCA church 45 minutes away. At the same time Steve Wilkins left the PCA for the CREC, which led the La. Presbytery to implode. So we were in denominational limbo. At the same time I was exploring some claims made by Eastern Orthodoxy. I knew Wilson at the time was interacting with some guys who just swam the Bosporus. He was completely out of his depth. Instead of analytically dealing with the issue, he just inserted the theological equivalent of a laugh track every few paragraphs.

I realized then that he is just not very good at theology. A good rhetorician, to be sure, but that's it. In any case, I was disillusioned with him. He couldn't give theological guidance when it mattered most (though to be fair, many Reformed guys probably weren't capable of interacting with some aspects of EO).

Around 2012 I swung back to a Reformed mindset and was in conversation with R. Scott Clark on the covenants and justification. That's what really let me see how wrong the Federal Vision was. I started reading Richard Muller's works (ALL of them) and well, you don't leave filet mignon for hamburgers.

Around 2015 the abuse scandals from Christ Kirk (Sitler, Wight, Jim Nance--that one's really bad) started coming to light. That also revealed the Hive Mind among many Kirkers and Wilson apologists.

While Wilson wasn't front and center in the Trinity War of 2016, he still aligned himself with the wrong side and hasn't repented of that.

That's pretty much where I am today.
 
Just when I'd forgotten about Doug Wilson, here I'm reminded of him again!

But seriously, I'm very thankful to the members of this board for educating me on the dangers of the CREC.
 
Jacob, Daniel, Both of you have read the man, maybe extensively, you both have plenty of theological schooling and extensive reading (between the two of you you've likely read more in a year than most of us in ten), but it seems to be you are both saying there is no depth there. Perg seems to be saying the same thing from another angle; all image and no substance (the gospel, what counts). Too harsh? I don't read the man; never heard him preach. Does he preach Christ, expound scripture, etc.?
BayouHuguenot said:
I was newly married around 2008. My wife and I were not going to attend AAPC (and not just for theology reasons). We were going to a PCA church 45 minutes away. At the same time Steve Wilkins left the PCA for the CREC, which led the La. Presbytery to implode. So we were in denominational limbo. At the same time I was exploring some claims made by Eastern Orthodoxy. I knew Wilson at the time was interacting with some guys who just swam the Bosporus. He was completely out of his depth. Instead of analytically dealing with the issue, he just inserted the theological equivalent of a laugh track every few paragraphs.

I realized then that he is just not very good at theology. A good rhetorician, to be sure, but that's it. In any case, I was disillusioned with him. He couldn't give theological guidance when it mattered most (though to be fair, many Reformed guys probably weren't capable of interacting with some aspects of EO).

Around 2012 I swung back to a Reformed mindset and was in conversation with R. Scott Clark on the covenants and justification. That's what really let me see how wrong the Federal Vision was. I started reading Richard Muller's works (ALL of them) and well, you don't leave filet mignon for hamburgers.

Around 2015 the abuse scandals from Christ Kirk (Sitler, Wight, Jim Nance--that one's really bad) started coming to light. That also revealed the Hive Mind among many Kirkers and Wilson apologists.

While Wilson wasn't front and center in the Trinity War of 2016, he still aligned himself with the wrong side and hasn't repented of that.

That's pretty much where I am today.
Click to expand...

Reformed Covenanter said:
To be truthful, once you get past the fact that some of Doug Wilson's books are initially a "fun" read, you realise there is not all that much to them or to virtually anything else that he says. He has a clever way with words, I will give him that, but you soon grasp that it is largely a matter of style over substance. Even the much-praised books on the family are full of legalism presented as if it were the gospel itself - not to mention other aspects of highly dubious theology. One example is denying the covenant of works and advocating monocovenantalism - an extremely dangerous error - in The Federal Husband.

Also, I believe that the likes of Doug Wilson have gotten away with so much because of a consistent failure in Reformed churches to censure aberrant opinions because we liked the person who was advocating them. I upset people when I criticise John Murray for his denial of the covenant of works. I believe that his error corrupted the gospel and is partly responsible for the emergence of Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision. The fact that I agree with him on the Sabbath, holy days, and exclusive psalmody is beside the point. These issues are important, but they are not as important as errors that serve to undermine the gospel itself. If you are not willing to censure Mr Wilson or Professor Murray for their aberrant doctrines just because you like them, then you have lost all pretence of impartiality and have become a judge with evil thoughts (James 2:1-4).
Click to expand...
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Jacob, Daniel, Both of you have read the man, maybe extensively, you both have plenty of theological schooling and extensive reading (between the two of you you've likely read more in a year than most of us in ten), but it seems to be you are both saying there is no depth there. Perg seems to be saying the same thing from another angle; all image and no substance (the gospel, what counts). Too harsh? I don't read the man; never heard him preach. Does he preach Christ, expound scripture, etc.?
Click to expand...

I haven't listened to an actual sermon since 2014. I remember in seminary enjoying hearing him talk, but it was mainly about things I was interested in (FV, postmil, etc). I imagine from time to time he will point towards Christ. Expounding Scripture? Depends on the passage. I remember hearing him preach for an hour on Ezra and the law. He could get quite complex when explaining justification or covenant (meaning, I don't know what he said).

But in writing he is quite shallow.

Leithart is different. Leithart will actually wrestle with the text (even if getting much of it wrong).
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I haven't listened to an actual sermon since 2014. I remember in seminary enjoying hearing him talk, but it was mainly about things I was interested in (FV, postmil, etc). I imagine from time to time he will point towards Christ. Expounding Scripture? Depends on the passage. I remember hearing him preach for an hour on Ezra and the law. He could get quite complex when explaining justification or covenant (meaning, I don't know what he said).

But in writing he is quite shallow.

Leithart is different. Leithart will actually wrestle with the text (even if getting much of it wrong).
Click to expand...
Thanks. He has to be sharp if not brilliant; I think his bitterest lib enemies may even grant that much. I've never had any fascination with him; he seemed sophistic in the single exposure I had with him over 20 years ago.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Jacob, Daniel, Both of you have read the man, maybe extensively, you both have plenty of theological schooling and extensive reading (between the two of you you've likely read more in a year than most of us in ten), but it seems to be you are both saying there is no depth there. Perg seems to be saying the same thing from another angle; all image and no substance (the gospel, what counts). Too harsh? I don't read the man; never heard him preach. Does he preach Christ, expound scripture, etc.?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe because of his talented writing ability he focuses on rhetorical flourish and zip. He likes to make sound-bites. A lot of his writing aims for one-ups-man-ship (that is a word, isn't it?) and not an in-depth examination of beliefs. Just watch his buddy-on-the-road documentary with Christopher Hitchens, always trying to outdo the other (in a "Who is the Alpha male?" sort of way). The same with the "let's pour gas on this field of hay and smoke my cigar...always in front of the camera, of course" publicity stunt. He seems to be cultivating an image of masculine bravado and it just doesn't work very well unless you are a Reformed Theology nerd who wouldn't know an Alpha Male if they lit your fields on fire. In short, he is a glory hound and wants to be in the limelight.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I was newly married around 2008. My wife and I were not going to attend AAPC (and not just for theology reasons). We were going to a PCA church 45 minutes away. At the same time Steve Wilkins left the PCA for the CREC, which led the La. Presbytery to implode. So we were in denominational limbo. At the same time I was exploring some claims made by Eastern Orthodoxy. I knew Wilson at the time was interacting with some guys who just swam the Bosporus. He was completely out of his depth. Instead of analytically dealing with the issue, he just inserted the theological equivalent of a laugh track every few paragraphs.

I realized then that he is just not very good at theology. A good rhetorician, to be sure, but that's it. In any case, I was disillusioned with him. He couldn't give theological guidance when it mattered most (though to be fair, many Reformed guys probably weren't capable of interacting with some aspects of EO).

Around 2012 I swung back to a Reformed mindset and was in conversation with R. Scott Clark on the covenants and justification. That's what really let me see how wrong the Federal Vision was. I started reading Richard Muller's works (ALL of them) and well, you don't leave filet mignon for hamburgers.

Around 2015 the abuse scandals from Christ Kirk (Sitler, Wight, Jim Nance--that one's really bad) started coming to light. That also revealed the Hive Mind among many Kirkers and Wilson apologists.

While Wilson wasn't front and center in the Trinity War of 2016, he still aligned himself with the wrong side and hasn't repented of that.

That's pretty much where I am today.
Click to expand...

Similar story.

I was a pretty big DW fan back when he was debating Hitchens. I was a newly-minted presupper, and New Atheism was all the rage, so I thought he was great. I also like Chesterton and Wodehouse, so that was a draw. That's largely, I suspect, where his style derives: he reads good authors. Never really read any of his stuff, other than his blog.

Then I heard the eschatology talk thingy with Piper and somebody else. I forget who. I was trying to nail down my eschatology at the time, and thought it might be helpful. Piper took roughly premil, I think (this was years ago), and DW was postmil. Honestly, I thought he sounded a bit like a clown. Also seriously out of his depth with the others, who were clearly much more erudite. It seemed to me he didn't have much to offer, so I never really listened to him again.
 
Andrew35 said:
Similar story.

I was a pretty big DW fan back when he was debating Hitchens. I was a newly-minted presupper, and New Atheism was all the rage, so I thought he was great. I also like Chesterton and Wodehouse, so that was a draw. That's largely, I suspect, where his style derives: he reads good authors. Never really read any of his stuff, other than his blog.

Then I heard the eschatology talk thingy with Piper and somebody else. I forget who. I was trying to nail down my eschatology at the time, and thought it might be helpful. Piper took roughly premil, I think (this was years ago), and DW was postmil. Honestly, I thought he sounded a bit like a clown. Also seriously out of his depth with the others, who were clearly much more erudite. It seemed to me he didn't have much to offer, so I never really listened to him again.
Click to expand...
Did you think he did well against Hitchens in that video they released? I didn’t know anything about DW at the time but had just heard about the debate and how great it was going to be. I wasn’t impressed by DW, found it puzzling and a bit embarrassing.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
Did you think he did well against Hitchens in that video they released? I didn’t know anything about DW at the time but had just heard about the debate and how great it was going to be. I wasn’t impressed by DW, found it puzzling and a bit embarrassing.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I can't recall it being particularly good -- or much of it at all. I don't even think I saw any more than a few clips of it posted online when it went down. I just really liked the idea of a presuppositionalist debating a New Atheist, felt I already knew what most of the content would be, due to my familiarity with Greg Bahnsen's "Great Debate," and started following Wilson's blog.
 
Andrew35 said:
To be honest, I can't recall it being particularly good -- or much of it at all. I don't even think I saw any more than a few clips of it posted online when it went down. I just really liked the idea of a presuppositionalist debating a New Atheist, felt I already knew what most of the content would be, due to my familiarity with Greg Bahnsen's "Great Debate," and started following Wilson's blog.
Click to expand...

I think you summarized it in a nutshell. Wilson's debate with atheist Dan Barker was horrible. He let Barker get away with numerous emotional fallacies. It was bad. I'll be fair: he has gotten better. Ironically, one of his best debates was against James White around 2005.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Gotcha. I'm surprised you think he did well. I thought White smoked him.
Click to expand...

I use the term "well" loosely. Neither side was Bahnsen. While I won't say Wilson won, largely because I can't say those words, I think he held his own for a while, at least on the historical angle. Part of the problem is that the debate morphed into a paedobaptist debate and Wilson did well bringing Hodge's view of Roman Catholics into the discussion.
 
I have my problems with Wilson, but we should not fall into the trap of thinking that acknowledging ability is the same thing as approving actions. Wilson's teachings, style, and decisions are all legitimate grounds for criticism. But when we criticize him on absurd, insignificant, or counter-factual grounds we're falling into the mindset described by Michael Malice: "Everyone who disagrees with me is evil and stupid. It's just logic." (Or words to that effect.) One of the unfortunate side-effects of such criticism, is that it makes it easy for the target, or his defenders, to dismiss other observations as envy or anger.

I think the credential criticism is absurd. Many credentialed people are knot-headed critters, and the uncredentialed have sometimes done quite well (cf. C.S. Lewis's reaction to being asked if Charles Williams had a degree, when Lewis invited him to lecture at Magdalen). Credentialism is one way the cult of conventionality has invaded and weakened the Reformed churches, by making us less willing to be fools for Christ.
I think the ineptitude criticisms are counter-factual. It's clear that Wilson reads swiftly and widely, and under a pseudonym could run rings around a lot of us, and quite possibly a number of our ecclesiastical assemblies as well. He hasn't built a large and passionate following even among sincere Christians by virtue of being a blundering idiot. (I was surprised the once or twice I've heard him speak that his speaking skills seemed so far below his writing skills.) Now I do recall that he once referred to 'Mark "Turretin" Horne' and that naturally makes one think that any depth of engagement with Protestant Scholasticism was inadequate.
The aesthetic criticisms may be insignificant, or not capable of consistent application. He opens himself up for them by making them about others, naturally, but there are lots of stereotypical Reformed people who seem to think that beards, alcohol, and cigars enter into the definition of a confessional Christian. There are other stylistic choices he makes, of course, which may well reflect a different and even an unbiblical mindset.

It also seems to me that he's done better than his associates, and than some of his critics, at expressing the call of the Gospel forcefully at various times on his blog. I haven't looked in several years, but I used to notice fairly frequent paragraphs in posts that called for repentance in a context of God's mercy. That seemed like one place, as well as geniality and talent, that Wilson was an improvement over his FV associates. I also got the impression that when he wasn't thinking about other things, he was thinking about sin, and some of his comments on the functioning of sin I have found genuinely illuminating.

Now I don't mean to defend him, or the institutions that have coagulated around him. This is not said as a defense; it is said in service of a more exact, and therefore hopefully more penetrating and persuasive criticism. Through his associates, his attitudes, and his additions to Reformed doctrine, he's at least partially responsible for much confusion and many conflicts (as Daniel observes, not without antecedents). Bullies appeal to his work in justification of their bullying. I suspect he'd rebuke some of them if he knew them, but being the favorite theologian of bullies should give some pause for reflection. These observations are made on the basis of what has happened on the Internet. What happens in Moscow has been extensively discussed, but I don't have any direct acquaintance to speak to those matters.
 
Last edited:
Granted, I don't think the credential criticism is the most important. It does have a place. A few weeks ago Wilson said anyone who shared the Vice article on Twitter (which I did several times) is lost and outside the kingdom or something like that. My first response was to laugh at him. As I reflected, I realized he, not being a real minister, has zero judicial authority when it comes to keys of the kingdom.
 
The qualifications of Wilson aside, who here has not seen the OP described comradery and edifying fellowship in his own denomination? It is among the elders, deacons and laymen in my own church- though we don't all have beards. Maybe our machismo level is insufficient for many CREC enthusiasts, but just reading the PB over 15 years tells me many of us share the commendable aspects of the OP without as much heresy and excess.
 
py3ak said:
I have my problems with Wilson, but we should not fall into the trap of thinking that acknowledging ability is the same thing as approving actions. Wilson's teachings, style, and decisions are all legitimate grounds for criticism. But when we criticize him on absurd, insignificant, or counter-factual grounds we're falling into the mindset described by Michael Malice: "Everyone who disagrees with me is evil and stupid. It's just logic." (Or words to that effect.) One of the unfortunate side-effects of such criticism, is that it makes it easy for the target, or his defenders, to dismiss other observations as envy or anger.

I think the credential criticism is absurd. Many credentialed people are knot-headed critters, and the uncredentialed have sometimes done quite well (cf. C.S. Lewis's reaction to being asked if Charles Williams had a degree, when Lewis invited him to lecture at Magdalen). Credentialism is one way the cult of conventionality has invaded and weakened the Reformed churches, by making us less willing to be fools for Christ.
I think the ineptitude criticisms are counter-factual. It's clear that Wilson reads swiftly and widely, and under a pseudonym could run rings around a lot of us, and quite possibly a number of our ecclesiastical assemblies as well. He hasn't built a large and passionate following even among sincere Christians by virtue of being a blundering idiot. (I was surprised the once or twice I've heard him speak that his speaking skills seemed so far below his writing skills.) Now I do recall that he once referred to 'Mark "Turretin" Horne' and that naturally makes one think that any depth of engagement with Protestant Scholasticism was inadequate.
The aesthetic criticisms may be insignificant, or not capable of consistent application. He opens himself up for them by making them about others, naturally, but there are lots of stereotypical Reformed people who seem to think that beards, alcohol, and cigars enter into the definition of a confessional Christian. There are other stylistic choices he makes, of course, which may well reflect a different and even an unbiblical mindset.

It also seems to me that he's done better than his associates, and than some of his critics, at expressing the call of the Gospel forcefully at various times on his blog. I haven't looked in several years, but I used to notice fairly frequent paragraphs in posts that called for repentance in a context of God's mercy. That seemed like one place, as well as geniality and talent, that Wilson was an improvement over his FV associates. I also got the impression that when he wasn't thinking about other things, he was thinking about sin, and some of his comments on the functioning of sin I have found genuinely illuminating.

Now I don't mean to defend him, or the institutions that have coagulated around him. This is not said as a defense; it is said in service of a more exact, and therefore hopefully more penetrating and persuasive criticism. Through his associates, his attitudes, and his additions to Reformed doctrine, he's at least partially responsible for much confusion and many conflicts (as Daniel observes, not without antecedents). Bullies appeal to his work in justification of their bullying. I suspect he'd rebuke some of them if he knew them, but being the favorite theologian of bullies should give some pause for reflection. These observations are made on the basis of what has happened on the Internet. What happens in Moscow has been extensively discussed, but I don't have any direct acquaintance to speak to those matters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no question the guy's gifted. And I'm also extremely skeptical of credentialism, given the kind of pablum our unis are serving up these days.

My complaint was more focused on the fact that he didn't seem to have done much work in the things he was ostensibly platformed for. He has style and gifts for sure, but seemingly not the substance from rigorous study of the subjects he was debating when I listened. That quality doesn't have to come from an accredited study, but that is one way of certifying that it has taken place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

moral necessity
  • Locked
CREC church in my area
2
Replies
53
Views
16K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
LaurenC
CREC and ESS
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
LaurenC
LaurenC
LeviRPCGA
Could the CREC be designated as an episcopacy?
Replies
13
Views
905
Sam Jer
S
Anglicanorthodoxy
  • Locked
Are all CREC churches FV?
Replies
12
Views
8K
TylerRay
TylerRay
Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
Danger in the Camp by John Otis
Replies
6
Views
5K
Southern Presbyterian
Southern Presbyterian
Back
Top