retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
The same could be said about Byrd sadly. Neither should be in the pulpit.
Sons of Patriarchy
- Thread starter Guido's Brother
- Start date
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's true. I think everyone in that debate simply exploded. Byrd became progressive and her main critic became a kinist.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Indeed. We live in very strange times.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Junior
By this criterion, was Spurgeon a real minister?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In the strict Reformation sense, no. I'm following Turretin on this. I can grant he was a good man who did good things, but he had an irregular calling (unless someone who knows his bio better can say otherwise).
Turretin vs. Doug Wilson on Calling
I do not know if Wilson has since gotten a legitimate calling and ordination from an established church body. But he explains in his own words. (I thank Rachel Miller for finding this. I also rec…
tentsofshem.wordpress.com
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
I suppose this would mean though that we should allow for some exceptions. However, it should be just that, an exception, to be taken by a case by case basis. For Spurgeon though, since he was a Baptist, ordination works kind of differently anyway. Most general Baptist churches I visit today, the person preaching could just be someone from the congregation they are giving a chance. Other times it is a very formal process (in the reformed Baptist world). With Wilson though, he claims to be a presbyterian, so it should have followed some formal process.In the strict Reformation sense, no. I'm following Turretin on this. I can grant he was a good man who did good things, but he had an irregular calling (unless someone who knows his bio better can say otherwise).
Turretin vs. Doug Wilson on Calling
I do not know if Wilson has since gotten a legitimate calling and ordination from an established church body. But he explains in his own words. (I thank Rachel Miller for finding this. I also rec…
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed. At best, Wilson should have called himself an Independent ala the New England Puritans.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Junior
Sadly true.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Junior
Would you be willing to share at greater length?
Episode 1 is pretty much about "the Patriarchy", trying to marry Wilson to "mainstream" evangelical views re: patriarchy, LGBTQ, et al.
That is to say, Wilson was embraced by and is not all that far off from mainstream evangelical "patriarchal" views.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
I did think the reminder that DW was platformed by John Piper and Sproul (Ligonier) was helpful -- it contributed to his legitimization and popularity.
To what end? What does that "reminder" do, exactly? Because once DW started going off the deepend with the FV, as well as an increasingly crass and profane patriarchalism, his "platformers" didn't go with him.
This episode of the podcast itself provides no distinction in complementarian/patriarchal views. It doesn't differentiate or clarify. It paints with a broad brush, provides no nuance, and contributes very little to the discussion that hasn't been said already.
I'm queuing up the 2nd episode, but I hope it's better than the 1st.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Junior
That just sounds like a reminder that Doug Wilson has had - and maybe still has - some good and useful things to say. The question is whether his harmful doctrines and his habit of obfuscation render it worthwhile to sift through his work for the good things, or whether it's best to just go elsewhere.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
It's just a reminder of how we got here. Historical analysis to put things in perspective. How did Joe Rigney get from Bethlehem to Moscow? I doubt it would have happened without John Piper's earlier imprimatur and nihil obstat.
The answer to that is no, because I've found that relatively few who "appreciate what he has to say" don't also embrace or excuse his significant errors.
I can get onboard with "how did we get here." I've got my own podcast in the works that goes considerably farther back than this podcast does. In other words,, it doesn't really get to the heart of the matter and really just leaves it in the post early feminism warfare space with an approving nod to feminism by the guest.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
So guilt by association basically...?
Last edited:
Certainly not explicitly, but by good and necessary inference. Mainstream conservative evangelicalism platformed DW and really isn't that far off from what he believes.
Episode 2 is moving in the right direction, but still lacking. Here are my thoughts.
Positive:
1. This episode moves into the sphere of sexual sin, abuse, and coverup that has been plaguing the church for quite some time. It speaks to the climate in which abuse and coverup occur and the way in which evangelicalism has theologically and socially created a context in which abuse and coverup flourish. I don’t really know how you can be an aware American Evangelical and not see this is a huge problem. The influence of men like Bill Gothard has been astronomical in this regard. His perversion of Biblical family structure has had far reaching consequences in the USA and one can see Gothard in Wilson.
2. No specifics as to Wilson have been pursued, but the stage has been set to pursue those specifics. Hopefully that’s what the next episode covers.
Negative:
1. Once again, the podcast is guilty of conflation and a lack of nuance. It continues to lack any nuance or distinction with respect to submission on the part of the wife in the home and gives the impression that the idea of submission itself is the problem.
2. Mirroring the first episode, the podcast continues to advocate deconstruction. In the first episode this was painted as “leaving the cave” in the Platonic sense. In this second episode the terminology is explicit and blatant.
At this point, I would not recommend this podcast to the average Christian. It has the potential for being destructive and leading folks astray from the truth. I remain willing to, with a careful ear, hear what it has to say, but I am not impressed thus far.
Positive:
1. This episode moves into the sphere of sexual sin, abuse, and coverup that has been plaguing the church for quite some time. It speaks to the climate in which abuse and coverup occur and the way in which evangelicalism has theologically and socially created a context in which abuse and coverup flourish. I don’t really know how you can be an aware American Evangelical and not see this is a huge problem. The influence of men like Bill Gothard has been astronomical in this regard. His perversion of Biblical family structure has had far reaching consequences in the USA and one can see Gothard in Wilson.
2. No specifics as to Wilson have been pursued, but the stage has been set to pursue those specifics. Hopefully that’s what the next episode covers.
Negative:
1. Once again, the podcast is guilty of conflation and a lack of nuance. It continues to lack any nuance or distinction with respect to submission on the part of the wife in the home and gives the impression that the idea of submission itself is the problem.
2. Mirroring the first episode, the podcast continues to advocate deconstruction. In the first episode this was painted as “leaving the cave” in the Platonic sense. In this second episode the terminology is explicit and blatant.
At this point, I would not recommend this podcast to the average Christian. It has the potential for being destructive and leading folks astray from the truth. I remain willing to, with a careful ear, hear what it has to say, but I am not impressed thus far.
Last edited:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
I have noticed a lot of this 'discernment/abuse awareness ministries' throw the baby out with the bathwater in this area. And if you don't listen to them and their 'solutions' then you're guilty of abetting abuse of any kind.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is tangential, but it will probably come up in this series: some of Wilson's disciples, namely those who follow Webbon, are currently debating whether Hitler was a model Christian prince. It's gotten pretty ugly. Webbon, to be fair, does not think Hitler was a good Christian prince. Still, it's a talking point in his circles.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Junior
Neo-Hitlerism is edgy and subverts the mainstream narrative they want you to believe. Therefore it is worth listening to. Don't be close-minded, now. Real men aren't afraid of a little debate. You're not a sissy, are you?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
As one would imagine in this crucial week ahead there has been a massive divide on Twitter X. Words have been exchanged and both sides anticipate victory.
Oh and then there’s the election.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Sophomore
Loosely following along with the podcast, knowing relatively little about Wilson.
Just listened to ‘the apostle of the patriarchs’. It seems still too early to tell how reputable the podcast will be. I am open to listening to anyone, including unbelievers and believers with serious theological issues.. I think we are called to do that as Christians.. so no complaints from me there.
My criticism so far is around some of the opinion pieces put forward, primarily from Bell himself, which puts an agenda in the mouth of Wilson with insufficient backing, at least from what I have heard within the podcast so far. This is unhelpful for someone like me who is not an expert on Doug Wilson. Why not simply relay the facts and experiences of the guests and let the hearer form their opinion? Biggest positive is that there are some more concrete pieces of information and specific testimonies coming out in this episode. Some of these things are deeply troubling.
On a personal note, I’m also pondering whether to continue listening. Am I just doing it because I’m interested in the drama? Do I need to listen for the sake of understanding what spiritual abuse looks like and how to combat it?
Curious to know other’s thoughts on recent episodes.
Just listened to ‘the apostle of the patriarchs’. It seems still too early to tell how reputable the podcast will be. I am open to listening to anyone, including unbelievers and believers with serious theological issues.. I think we are called to do that as Christians.. so no complaints from me there.
My criticism so far is around some of the opinion pieces put forward, primarily from Bell himself, which puts an agenda in the mouth of Wilson with insufficient backing, at least from what I have heard within the podcast so far. This is unhelpful for someone like me who is not an expert on Doug Wilson. Why not simply relay the facts and experiences of the guests and let the hearer form their opinion? Biggest positive is that there are some more concrete pieces of information and specific testimonies coming out in this episode. Some of these things are deeply troubling.
On a personal note, I’m also pondering whether to continue listening. Am I just doing it because I’m interested in the drama? Do I need to listen for the sake of understanding what spiritual abuse looks like and how to combat it?
Curious to know other’s thoughts on recent episodes.
An FYI. Harrison Perkins, who I know from working with him as a contributor to The Confessional Presbyterian, was asked to participate in this program to talk about biblical Reformed preaching and pastoring. After he saw the names of those participating in the podcast, he declined to be involved in the series.
I listened to another one and remain underwhelmed. I'm listening because I think it is important to call public Christian figures out when they are in error and to know what my people need to be warned against. I get that the podcast is "setting things up" but the setting of the table is suspect thus far. I am no Wilson fan but this podcast needs to do better than what it's doing because right now it is just an exercise in poisoning the well.
I would agree. The way it tees up the issue in the very first episode, as Dumas claims to speak for how Christians ought to accept every expression of Christianity and claims to speak for Calvinism, is a very odd way to establish the series.
The episode where he follows with a psychologizing of Wilson is strange as well.
I have not been a fan of Wilson for many years, but this series sets things up in such a strange way that it's going to be easy to pick apart even when they land valid criticisms.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
I don't know if he knows that or not. He has not watched the series. I'll tell him.
Just finished listening to the episodes on abuse. They are disturbing to say the least. I’m conflicted because of 9th commandment issues and am waiting on SoP to produce its evidence. If what these episodes reveal is true, there’s a real problem in Moscow, though I wouldn’t say it indicts every CREC church.
Similar threads
- Locked
