Not another DW thread

[LittleFaith]

On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood

Kevin DeYoung has recently published what I found to be a very helpful "overview" of the Doug Wilson phenomenon. His approach is a little bit different - rather than taking up the theological quibbles that all soundly Reformed Christians should have, or addressing some of the scandals, he sets out to discern the reason for Doug Wilson's appeal, with the thesis that DW's draw is not primarily theological and is instead emotive - that people are instinctively drawn to a brand/image/attitude that taps into something they resonate with.

Because of his decision not to focus on theology or particular incidents, he is able to address some of the less clear-cut issues: the incendiary rhetoric, the coarse behavior, and (what I found most insightful) the extent to which this phenomenon is in the end centered not so much on a belief system but on the personal brand of Doug Wilson himself. That he does so with reasoned Biblical support is much appreciated by at least this one reader; in addition, rather than simply criticizing DW, he provides an alternate vision / course of action in the areas of critique.

As is usual in his writing, he is very gracious and irenic in his tone. He spends considerable time noting DW's positives, pointing out areas of commonality, and highlighting the potential for greater good influence. Here and elsewhere, this generates a vague sense of annoyance that the good is not more unreservedly affirmed and the bad not more pointedly critiqued. This is as likely to reflect my own immaturity and sharpness as it is to reflect an actual shortcoming on KDY's part.

For those (like my wife) who have not had prior exposure to DW, I found this to be a very helpful overview. This is an article that can be given to the less theologically egg-headed among us to explain why one should exercise care with this man and his writings - to people for whom the nuances of the Federal Vision controversy might not mean much, for instance.

I would welcome thoughts from those who have the time to read this for themselves.

 

[Andres]

The article glossed over Wilson's theological errors, which are quite serious. Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the article, fine, but if the purpose was to give a "warning" to those unfamiliar with Wilson, you really can't just breeze past his unbiblical views of the covenants and justification. I don't follow Wilson so I didn't even know about the "No quarter November" nonsense. Those videos that were linked were laughable. Wilson comes across to me like an egomaniac with his name and face seemingly plastered over everything they put out. I really don't see his appeal but obviously someone is buying the kool-aid.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood

Kevin DeYoung has recently published what I found to be a very helpful "overview" of the Doug Wilson phenomenon. His approach is a little bit different - rather than taking up the theological quibbles that all soundly Reformed Christians should have, or addressing some of the scandals, he sets out to discern the reason for Doug Wilson's appeal, with the thesis that DW's draw is not primarily theological and is instead emotive - that people are instinctively drawn to a brand/image/attitude that taps into something they resonate with.

Because of his decision not to focus on theology or particular incidents, he is able to address some of the less clear-cut issues: the incendiary rhetoric, the coarse behavior, and (what I found most insightful) the extent to which this phenomenon is in the end centered not so much on a belief system but on the personal brand of Doug Wilson himself. That he does so with reasoned Biblical support is much appreciated by at least this one reader; in addition, rather than simply criticizing DW, he provides an alternate vision / course of action in the areas of critique.

As is usual in his writing, he is very gracious and irenic in his tone. He spends considerable time noting DW's positives, pointing out areas of commonality, and highlighting the potential for greater good influence. Here and elsewhere, this generates a vague sense of annoyance that the good is not more unreservedly affirmed and the bad not more pointedly critiqued. This is as likely to reflect my own immaturity and sharpness as it is to reflect an actual shortcoming on KDY's part.

For those (like my wife) who have not had prior exposure to DW, I found this to be a very helpful overview. This is an article that can be given to the less theologically egg-headed among us to explain why one should exercise care with this man and his writings - to people for whom the nuances of the Federal Vision controversy might not mean much, for instance.

I would welcome thoughts from those who have the time to read this for themselves.

I also thought this was a very helpful article. While of course the theological issues do matter too, Deyoung did an excellent job of making explicit the fuzzier cultural issues that give Wilson popular appeal and raise concern for many believers.

 

[greenbaggins]

I think the scope of DeYoung's article needs to be recognized. He is not giving an overview of Wilson's entire theological enterprise, but rather a snapshot of the question: why is Wilson so popular? It would be easy to critique the article for what it doesn't say. But I actually think it is rather telling that DeYoung does NOT mention theology as a reason why Wilson is popular.

 

[LittleFaith]

The article glossed over Wilson's theological errors, which are quite serious. Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the article, fine, but if the purpose was to give a "warning" to those unfamiliar with Wilson, you really can't just breeze past his unbiblical views of the covenants and justification.

I think the scope of DeYoung's article needs to be recognized. He is not giving an overview of Wilson's entire theological enterprise, but rather a snapshot of the question: why is Wilson so popular? It would be easy to critique the article for what it doesn't say. But I actually think it is rather telling that DeYoung does NOT mention theology as a reason why Wilson is popular.

@Andres he explicitly says that he is passing over the theological issues, so it is quite clear that such fall outside his chosen scope. And I do believe he is arguing that people are drawn to the 'mood' before the theology... which I think is an important point. People don't come to DW consciously searching for a post-mill church with a fuzzy semi-FV view of justification. They buy the theology after they've already subscribed to the brand. While I don't think the theological issues can be overlooked, DeYoung does make a reasonable case for choosing not to address them in this particular article.

 

[RamistThomist]

They buy the theology after they've already subscribed to the brand. While I don't think the theological issues can be overlooked, DeYoung does make a reasonable case for choosing not to address them in this particular article.

Exactly, which is why his fake "rejection" of FV was a stroke of marketing genius. True, he lied and duped many, but now his disciples can say to the theologically unlearned: "Oh, don't worry about that. He doesn't believe that anymore," even though he still affirms everything on the JFV2007.

 

[TheInquirer]

Brilliant article and insights from DeYoung, here are a couple that struck me as particularly helpful in understanding Wilson:

Wilson excels at the motte and bailey approach: make an outrageous statement that fires up the internet, and then when pressed, retreat to a milder version of the same statement, all without ever giving up the original statement.

Wilson’s online persona is not about introducing Reformed creeds and confessions, or about explaining the books of the Bible, or about global mission to the uttermost parts of the earth, or about liturgy, preaching, prayer, and the ordinary means of grace. I’m sure Wilson cares about all those things, but that’s not what No Quarter November and his self-promotional trailers are selling. By and large, it’s not what the other eleven months of videos and tweets and memes and blog posts are selling either. Wilson may be a happy warrior, but it is easier to spot his happiness in the war itself than in the things he claims to be fighting for

So much of what Wilson produces online strikes me as showmanship. It’s like that famous quip from James Denney that is impossible to make ourselves look clever while also proclaiming that Christ is mighty to save

Sarcasm can be a holy weapon in the Lord’s army (see Elijah on Mount Carmel). But sarcasm and satire by the minister are best used sparingly and against those whose hearts are set against the truth. But Wilson makes fun of those who could be allies and loves to troll people who disagree with him. It’s as if all the world is a meme war to be won, and no publicity is bad publicity so long as people are paying attention to Wilson and Canon Press

Also, excellent critiques of Wilson’s ungodly language which we have highlighted on this forum in the past.

The only thing I didnt like about the article - I felt DeYoung was too soft on Wilson at the end. I dont think Wilson should reform his ministry. I think he should be removed from ministry permanently.

 

[jwithnell]

I posted this on a mostly local OPC discussion about the article. (And I agree with the previous remarks that the article did not try to engage all the crazy theology.)

Having watched this unfold across 40 years, beginning with the theonomy and reconstructionist movements of the 1980s, I am convinced this is the driving force: if you oppose an evil (abortion created the greatest start to this) than you may indeed use any level of pugnaciousness available to you in your opposition to this evil. We are justified in denying what the Bible commands for the demeanor of the humble follower of Christ if we believe it produces a greater good. This is no gospel at all.

 

[Edward]

the incendiary rhetoric, the coarse behavior, and (what I found most insightful) the extent to which this phenomenon is in the end centered not so much on a belief system but on the personal brand of Doug Wilson himself.

The same features that make Trump attractive to many voters.

 

[MattTheReformedRuminator]

I didn’t expect this to be my first post, but it turns out this article really resonated with me and helped me make sense of something I’ve been contemplating for a while.

On a Reformed-leaning Discord server I'm part of, where most members claim to hold confessional views, I’ve observed a trend over the past few months. Many in the group, despite claiming adherence to confessional doctrines, actually advocate for non-confessional beliefs. Disagreements often escalate into arguments and generally end with crude name-calling. The moderators both seem to mostly support this and participate in it at times. The language DeYoung notes that DW uses will give you a general idea of where they go. What struck me was not just the deviation from confessional stances, but the depth of knowledge behind these non-confessional views. It’s not just one or two people – it feels like they’re getting their info from the same place. Then it hit me when one of the mods recommended Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism from Canon Press this afternoon.

That’s when everything clicked. Their whole push for Christian Nationalism, Theonomy, Militant Postmil, and the rough, confrontational language – it all made sense. I can’t say for sure that it’s all coming from Douglas Wilson and Moscow, but there’s definitely a pattern. It seems like a lot of younger Reformed guys are getting drawn to people like DW and Joel Webbon. I think it’s partly (mostly?) a reaction to what’s going on in the Western church in general.

From what I see, especially with the younger crowd on this server (average age is probably around 18), DeYoung is pointing out a serious and growing issue. These young men aren’t flocking to DW and Joel Webbon for their superior theology; it’s more about the inflammatory and confrontational style that appeals to them, kind of giving them a voice against what they see as a “soft” version of Christianity. They come for the memes, but end up getting their theology twisted by these guys. DeYoung’s article really hits the nail on the head. Sure, we can pick apart DW’s theology, but I don't think that's what is drawing the majority of people in. We’ve got to understand why this kind of bait is so attractive and effective. There's a huge need for strong and solid Christian discipleship for these young men, but instead, they're finding people like DW who lead them off track.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the problem can be ignored.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

From the article:

He offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection. On top of that, Wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ.
Moreover, Wilson understands that opposition to Christ—his word, his gospel, and his Lordship—is not to be taken lightly. Many Christians are witnessing the disintegration of our Western world, and the Christian consensus that used to hold sway, and they are thinking to themselves, “This is terrible. I can’t believe this is happening.” To the Christians with these concerns—and I count myself among them—Doug Wilson says, “Yes, it is really bad, and let’s do something about it.”

What Wilson and his family offer is an authoritarian patriarchal leadership that will tank the western world faster than the scribes, pharisees, and the jews caused the leveling of Jerusalem. I find Wilson's treatment of a lost world to be nothing but repelling and inflammatory to the gospel when thousands flocked to Jesus and his ministry to hear him. I find also, that like Christ, his followers tried to make him king and to save the nation to which he heartily rejected. People that follow Wilson want a kingdom thats greater than themselves, (being ignorant that the kingdom itself resides in the heart of every believer) but also of one that is of this world, to which HIS kingdom is not. We are called strangers and pilgrims, and we look to a city who's builder and maker is God.

 

[jwithnell]

I didn’t expect this to be my first post, but it turns out this article really resonated with me and helped me make sense of something I’ve been contemplating for a while.

On a Reformed-leaning Discord server I'm part of, where most members claim to hold confessional views, I’ve observed a trend over the past few months. Many in the group, despite claiming adherence to confessional doctrines, actually advocate for non-confessional beliefs. Disagreements often escalate into arguments and generally end with crude name-calling. The moderators both seem to mostly support this and participate in it at times. The language DeYoung notes that DW uses will give you a general idea of where they go. What struck me was not just the deviation from confessional stances, but the depth of knowledge behind these non-confessional views. It’s not just one or two people – it feels like they’re getting their info from the same place. Then it hit me when one of the mods recommended Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism from Canon Press this afternoon.

That’s when everything clicked. Their whole push for Christian Nationalism, Theonomy, Militant Postmil, and the rough, confrontational language – it all made sense. I can’t say for sure that it’s all coming from Douglas Wilson and Moscow, but there’s definitely a pattern. It seems like a lot of younger Reformed guys are getting drawn to people like DW and Joel Webbon. I think it’s partly (mostly?) a reaction to what’s going on in the Western church in general.

From what I see, especially with the younger crowd on this server (average age is probably around 18), DeYoung is pointing out a serious and growing issue. These young men aren’t flocking to DW and Joel Webbon for their superior theology; it’s more about the inflammatory and confrontational style that appeals to them, kind of giving them a voice against what they see as a “soft” version of Christianity. They come for the memes, but end up getting their theology twisted by these guys. DeYoung’s article really hits the nail on the head. Sure, we can pick apart DW’s theology, but I don't think that's what is drawing the majority of people in. We’ve got to understand why this kind of bait is so attractive and effective. There's a huge need for strong and solid Christian discipleship for these young men, but instead, they're finding people like DW who lead them off track.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the problem can be ignored.

I really appreciate these comments and that of @CovenantPatriot87 You are both so very right about a troubling subject that I have not quite been able to identify for myself.

 

[Solparvus]

Great article for its scope. Mean tweets are the way of the world. Those who profess Christ--especially ministers--are called to a different standard. It's only one more reason (among many greater reasons) that no one should be following Doug Wilson (Gal. 1:8-9).

 

[alexanderjames]

kind of giving them a voice against what they see as a “soft” version of Christianity.

It goes to show how important it is that we do everything we can to model to a genuine Christlike attitude and behaviour that is wrought by the Spirit to fight against the evil of this age, not one that is fleshly - combative, puffed up and uncaring.

 

[itsreed]

I think the scope of DeYoung's article needs to be recognized. He is not giving an overview of Wilson's entire theological enterprise, but rather a snapshot of the question: why is Wilson so popular? It would be easy to critique the article for what it doesn't say. But I actually think it is rather telling that DeYoung does NOT mention theology as a reason why Wilson is popular.

Indeed, very telling.

KDY’s approach in this article is quite wise. If DW’s appeal is not theological but style (i.e., mood), then highlighting the significance of unblblical behavior evidences something quite important:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Mt 7:19-20a

Consider the article as a “fruits show roots”, or a “pollution downstream comes from upstream” structure. As practice comes from doctrine, this article does a telling job of critiquing a key quality of DW’s ministry, the serrated edge. Defended time and time again as essential to his apologetic (against the NAPARC world often), this “mood” issue shows there is something rotten to the core in the Moscow Kirk.

 

[MyCrows]

OP:

Not another DW thread​

Yes it is.

 

[LittleFaith]

OP:

Not another DW thread​

Yes it is.

I meant that in the sense of "oh no, not again"...

 

[Ulster Fry]

The reality is that many of the 'good' Christian leaders need to take some blame themselves for the rise of Doug Wilson. For example, where I'm from, almost all of the Christian leadership caved in pathetically during lockdown. Not only did we have government enforced closure of churches for months, without any protest, but almost all of the churches themselves voluntarily closed the following year for even longer. Many Christians, particularly young men, were appalled by the weakness of their church leaders and looked to other voices for some sanity, much of which came from the likes of Apologia and Doug Wilson. I don't think many Americans realise just how draconian the lockdowns were here by comparison.

I know many people who flocked to Wilson at exactly this time and lost faith in their local Christian leaders. Nobody will give two hoots about who is correct theologically if the 'good guys' consistently let them down and this is exactly the sort of response I get when I try to warn about Wilson.

 

[ZackF]

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

There's a huge need for strong and solid Christian discipleship for these young men, but instead, they're finding people like DW who lead them off track.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the problem can be ignored.

I think you point out something crucial here. I do think the rise of Wilson is due to a real issue in the American church and broader American society. Young men are drifting, and they are looking for someone to give them something solid to grab onto. In secular culture Jocko Willink, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, etc. are similar phenomena (though ironically excepting Tate, Wilson is probably more profane and edgy than most of these secular ones).

Churches and pastors in America do need to be intentional in addressing this problem, though of course that does not simply mean being a Christianized version of whatever solution secular culture is selling, which in many ways some of the edgier macho Christian types seem to be.

I'm not totally sure what that looks like, but I pray that the Lord will help us.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Some of you may remember that Wilson was, at one time, a regular contributor to Table Talk by Ligonier. It ended around the time the FV thing heated up.

At the time, I was in my early 30's and attracted to DW's ability to turn a phrase and demonstrate the folly of certain errors. It was a time when I was as interested in harping on the theological and cultural errors of others within the Church as I was about the truth of the Gospel. I'm grateful for this bord from about 2005 on because I might have fallen in with the FV crowd having attended an OPC Church where the Pastor was sympathetic to some of those errors.

I think that @Ulster Fry identifies, in part, why some are attracted to Wilson or anyone else willing to seem like they are taking a stand while others are spending all their time telling us how the main problem with the Church is male leadership or that the Church is hopelessly riddled with sexual abuse. Christianity Today or the ERLC or TGC seemed to many as if the chief problem with the Church or culture was Christians or, especially, Christian men.

Within the PCA, the Missional movement has created a host of Churches that spend most of their time railing against the perceived dangers of orthodox Presbyterians within the PCA while simultaneously presenting themselves to the world as non-confrontational and using doublespeak to downplay or ameliorate the antithesis between the world and the Gospel. We've even had PCA Pastors tell us on the floor of GA that we will have the world speaking against us if we make certain statements or fail to pass certain Overtures and they will be quoted by National press telling the world how backward the PCA is.

Gren Johnson, an openly gay Pastor within the PCA, was applauded by a number of Elders at the 2019 GA. At his departure, he was defended by many Elders as being railroaded using the same doublespeak and lack of clear truth-telling. This was all in the name of a "missional" attitude toward culture that ends up constantly compromising the culture so that the Overton widow of orthodoxy keeps shifting left and over a cliff.

I use this as an example because this is the backdrop against which Wilson's sinful excesses are attractive because many men are repelled by the milquetoast culturalists in the Church who keep telling them how bad men are, how great it is to be celibate and gay, or a host of other soft things that don't challenge them to be anything.

I say this not to excuse Wilson but to put his popularity in context. I agree with KDY's assessment but I have a much harsher assessment of the duplicity and wickedness of this culturalist compromise within Evangelical Churches. In other words, DW comes about his sinful excess honestly and is exceed by those who are applauded by the culture as being winsome even as they are leading even more persons within the Church astray.

 

[DanSSwing]

Just saw this on FB. Comedy gold.

 

[LittleFaith]

A response to Kevin DeYoung

Joe Rigney has rallied to Doug Wilson's defense with a critique of Kevin DeYoung's article.

Frankly, I didn't find this response worth reading as it seems to be comprised of three ingredients: obfuscation, downplaying, and "I know I am but what are you". The comments, if anything, are more illuminating than the article itself.

The irony is that I think the article and the comments together more or less establish the validity of what Rev. DeYoung said, as people rush to Moscow's defense by talking about how much they like the mood.

It also provides first-hand clarity (from DW supporters themselves) on why the appeal of Moscow is so strong, and I think it's important to recognize that. I saw very little about theology - strengthening the argument that people come for the mood and buy the theology later. Instead, it's the same thing we see with every Christian "fad" - a sense of newness, freshness, and vitality stemming from people who think they have found something new under the sun. The descriptions are all based on an emotional response to an experientially-defined happening. For me few things are more stirring than a group of believers singing together in 4-part harmony and I don't much care for the limp-wristed singing of so many congregations. It's a personal conviction of mine that families should worship together and that this should include Scripture, prayer, and singing. But the testimony of church history is that any cult leader or heretic can get a bunch of people to do something that is experientially wonderful, generating warm fuzzies about "community" and "closeness" and "living out the gospel" - all while covertly or openly departing from it or tampering with it in some way.

These people have got the cart before the horse. Rather than going for experientialism the way someone like Joel Beeke does - where you present a rigorously faithful gospel message, live it out, and experientially apply it to people's lives - these people have just decided to put up the house first without laying a foundation. After all, it's an awfully nice house, and if you don't like it then you're obviously one of those Debbie Downers who insists on everyone living in a plain brown shack. Who needs a solid doctrinal underpinning when you have *insert FEELS here*?

 

[VerticalLiftEnjoyer]

Just saw this on FB. Comedy gold.

View attachment 10712

Maybe I’m just pedantic but I never get these kinds of analogies. Doesn’t the first umbrella make the rest useless, and wasteful?

 

[DanSSwing]

Maybe I’m just pedantic but I never get these kinds of analogies. Doesn’t the first umbrella make the rest useless, and wasteful?

Yes, but it's a spoof of an old Bill Gothard analogy. I'm generally a big fan of DW even though I disagree with him on a few issues, but this is just funny if you know the reference.

 

[RamistThomist]

Maybe I’m just pedantic but I never get these kinds of analogies. Doesn’t the first umbrella make the rest useless, and wasteful?

It is a spoof on Gothard, but sadly his poison is still active today. You are correct. Gothard's style teaching effectively replaces Christ with the husband.

 

[John The Baptist]

That Rigney article was a tough read..

 

[RamistThomist]

I will note several tactical blunders with KDY's article:
1) He is connected with TGC.
2) He praised the ERLC. That is a slap in the face to many godly patriots.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was reflecting upon this today that it's sort of an ultimate issue of "taste" with respect to how one does or does not engage the culture. The irony is that ERLC, TGC, and Moscow all share in common a desire to engage the culture "prophetically". The first two do so in a form of what has been called Christian Critical Theory, preferring to always look at the longings that some perversion in the culture represents in terms of a deeper longing and showing how Christianity can better fulfill that longing. They'll also use the "white American Christian Church" in a caricature of "Christian nationalism, toxic masculinity, or {insert how bad conservative Christians are the minds of the world" and tell everyone that "we're not like them." The residue is that what is typically compromised by the TGC/ERLC/Christianity Today is a desire to move orthodoxy away from hard lines and prefer an Evangelical consensus that brings in Egalitarians, Critical Race Theorists, etc, in order to ensure that the culture is redeemed by an umbrella Evangelical (even Catholic) program.

The Moscow approach begins with a hard heterodoxy in their theology but maintains its commitment to these theological distortions. It wants to engage culture but does so by sticking with the antithesis. It doesn't suffer from the same perception (rightly earned) by the former crowd whose theology is in flux in order to synthesize with the culture and chase it to the left. Thus, it remains firmly committed to its form of heterodoxy. One might even say it is "manly" about its commitment to its heterodoxy.

When seen through this lens, it's easy to see why the response makes sense to the Moscovites. They are being true to who they are. They're generally and mostly devoted to a distorted Protestant heterodoxy about the nature of salvation, and when they engage the culture, they stick with a serrated antithesis.

I might add that, in the eyes of culturalists, Confessional Presbyterians look the same as Moscovites do. Many cannot discern the difference between an unbending orthodoxy and an unbending desire to tweak the culture. Within truly Reformed communions (the CREC is not one), however, culturalists are just as angry when they're told they cannot ordain women as deacons as they are about people saying the wrong things to the world.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

I think you point out something crucial here. I do think the rise of Wilson is due to a real issue in the American church and broader American society. Young men are drifting, and they are looking for someone to give them something solid to grab onto. In secular culture Jocko Willink, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, etc. are similar phenomena (though ironically excepting Tate, Wilson is probably more profane and edgy than most of these secular ones).

Churches and pastors in America do need to be intentional in addressing this problem, though of course that does not simply mean being a Christianized version of whatever solution secular culture is selling, which in many ways some of the edgier macho Christian types seem to be.

I'm not totally sure what that looks like, but I pray that the Lord will help us.

So, gangsters, but in church. Its "either your one of us, or your one of them". It's always about acceptance and "being enough", to which young men in particular gravitate towards, except in Wilsons "Moscow mood" it's never enough because like federal vision, it's about works righteousness, and because it's never enough, his followers are willing to go so far as to set the world on fire in the name of "no quarter November" and "fight, laugh, feast" to supposedly be accepted by God and the Christian word at large. Islamic ideology doesn't trail that far behind. They could also shake hands with the peasant revolt in Luther's day.