# "In Praise of the CREC" by Uriesou Brito



## UserGone221 (Oct 30, 2021)

I find this insightful.

In particular, the quote, "this fellow has irritated the right people for too many years to count,"

Post:

"In Praise of the CREC

Around 23 years ago, three independent churches decided to join forces. The autonomous status did not suit these good fellas, so they formed a little band of happy trouble-makers. Twenty-three years later, we gathered in Monroe, LA, for a Council that included over 100 churches and a famine around the globe for the kind of thing we offer abundantly: courage and creed.

I have just returned from four days of meetings and a few other meetings intertwined with happy meetings and superb fellowship and fine dining. The whole thing was an experience in renewed mercies. First, we deliberated over presbytery matters, and then we debated and deliberated on a host of documents and sundry issues as Council delegates. There was hearty back and forth and then a combo of laughter and decision-making.

We are a young denomination, and as my friend, Jerry Owen, says, young denominations need to be quick to repent and quick to be humble lest we fall. That’s a good word. But in our momentum, we don't want to let our supremely cheerful state go to waste. We are not over here cheering out of hubris for the incredible growth God has provided our tribe during Covidsterya, but because the signs of unity keep showing up from hobbit holes and theopolitan taverns. And if two or three brothers walking in unity is a good thing, a couple of hundred pastors and elders walking together is a whole different level of goodness.

It is hard to express my appreciation for a communion that has given me more than I expected but ultimately has taught me that my expectations for God’s goodness should be greater than I imagined. The CREC has been a home to me for almost 13 full years, and I genuinely pray these guys find my Latin presence fruitful for 33 more.

So, let me conclude this brief praise-worthy effort by sharing three thanksgiving elements of the CREC:

First, let’s put the cards on the table: Doug Wilson is the man! You may not like his beard or from whence his cigars cometh, but this fella has successfully irritated the right people for too many years to count. His joyful disposition and his plodding mammothness come with too many blessings to count. May his tribe increase and may his labors make Peter Enns lose his sleep at night.

Second, I had the joy of addressing the Council, but the more incredible thrill was sitting and listening to faithful pastors exhort and encourage us; many are quietly laboring in unknown towns doing the good work and providing the faithful word shepherding the sheep. They do this in Montana and Maine, and Missouri and their labors are not in vain. My gratitude for these faithful laborers increased a hundred-fold after our time together.

Finally, it is hard to define the joy CREC pastors have when they are together. It’s the sort of elation I never had in any other tradition and have never seen replicated. We don’t just get together to talk business; we get together to sing, share, and cherish one another. The like-mindedness of our communion adds a special touch to our fellowship. There is a rhythm to the things we do that keeps us all marching to the same beat year after year.

But beyond the drinks and devil-crushing strategies, there is also a firm reliance on the Triune God to bless our efforts. This commitment and trust mean that when we gather, we are sons of God going forth to war with the Son of God. And that means that our efforts these last 23 years have been one toast after the other.

May the Lord guide and bless our strategies, and may he see fit to strengthen our young tribe!
#creccouncil "

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 2


----------



## Elizabeth (Oct 30, 2021)

Oh boy. They talk in lockstep. 
Same cadence, same over-the-top lingo and phrasing. 
It's almost, well, feminine in its floweriness.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## UserGone221 (Oct 30, 2021)

Elizabeth said:


> Oh boy. They talk in lockstep.
> Same cadence, same over-the-top lingo and phrasing.
> It's almost, well, feminine in its floweriness.


Interesting---we've watched via livestream, a pastor confront the same cultural issues but by preaching "Christ crucified"---No insults nor taunts.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 30, 2021)

Seriously? Wow. Someone put this thread in the trash please…

Why is it even in the FV/NPP category?


@NaphtaliPress

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 30, 2021)

I don't have a problem it being posted, though it almost makes me want to bring the barfy smiley back. To echo in the vernacular, if you know you know. 


Peter Hyatt said:


> Why would you want this removed?
> 
> Or do you want it moved to another thread? I apologize if it's in the wrong section. I assumed it belonged in FV.
> 
> I found it helpful as it is plain to discern.





Romans922 said:


> Seriously? Wow. Someone put this thread in the trash please…
> 
> Why is it even in the FV/NPP category?
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## kodos (Oct 30, 2021)

If this is not posted for ironic effect, then I am truly shocked. 

"Doug Wilson is the man" only in the sense of Nathan's rebuke of David.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 30, 2021)

Peter Hyatt said:


> First, let’s put the cards on the table: Doug Wilson is the man! You may not like his beard or from whence his cigars cometh, but this fella has successfully irritated the right people for too many years to count. His joyful disposition and his plodding mammothness come with too many blessings to count. May his tribe increase and may his labors make Peter Enns lose his sleep at night.


I have not looked into Doug Wilson too deeply, mainly because I had no reason personally to do so. Nothing at stake. And I loath what to me was just gossip. I've heard tell of some of the "terrible" things about DW. Mostly I listen to innuendos and a general visceral dislike of him. And then there's the FV thing which I also hear he has abanded. So please understand that I personally know nothing against him, so I hold nothing against him. Except that everywhere, he is spoken against. (Acts 28:22)

But this I do know. When I listen to him cheerfully confront the culture and the Church, I like what he says. My wife doesn't, but I do. I think he's fun to watch. I watched the movie he made with atheist Christopher Hitchens, Collision, and liked it very much. Here's a link to the trailer. Christopher Hitchens has a special place in my heart. I truly loved him and often cried over his failed life. Unlike wise guy Dawkins (who I strongly dislike), Hitchens seemed to me like a hurting child who was abused and generally let down by his family. I could cry even now. I sum up his lectures on atheism in one sentence. "There is no God, and I hate Him."

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Oct 30, 2021)

Ed Walsh said:


> I have not looked into Doug Wilson too deeply, mainly because I had no reason personally to do so. Nothing at stake. And I loath what to me was just gossip. I've heard tell of some of the "terrible" things about DW. Mostly I listen to innuendos and a general visceral dislike of him. And then there's the FV thing which I also hear he has abanded. So please understand that I personally know nothing against him, so I hold nothing against him. Except that everywhere, he is spoken against. (Acts 28:22)
> 
> But this I do know. When I listen to him cheerfully confront the culture and the Church, I like what he says. My wife doesn't, but I do. I think he's fun to watch. I watched the movie he made with atheist Christopher Hitchens, Collision, and liked it very much. Here's a link to the trailer. Christopher Hitchens has a special place in my heart. I truly loved him and often cried over his failed life. Unlike wise guy Dawkins (who I strongly dislike), Hitchens seemed to me like a hurting child who was abused and generally let down by his family. I could cry even now. I sum up his lectures on atheism in one sentence. "There is no God, and I hate Him."
> 
> That's all I have to say on the matter.


In what world has Wilson abandoned Federal Vision? Has he publicly repented?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## UserGone221 (Oct 30, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> In what world has Wilson abandoned Federal Vision? Has he publicly repented?




When an explanation use more words than the original statement, something is amiss.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Oct 30, 2021)

Ed Walsh said:


> I have not looked into Doug Wilson too deeply, mainly because I had no reason personally to do so. Nothing at stake. And I loath what to me was just gossip. I've heard tell of some of the "terrible" things about DW. Mostly I listen to innuendos and a general visceral dislike of him. And then there's the FV thing which I also hear he has abanded. So please understand that I personally know nothing against him, so I hold nothing against him. Except that everywhere, he is spoken against. (Acts 28:22)
> 
> But this I do know. When I listen to him cheerfully confront the culture and the Church, I like what he says. My wife doesn't, but I do. I think he's fun to watch. I watched the movie he made with atheist Christopher Hitchens, Collision, and liked it very much. Here's a link to the trailer. Christopher Hitchens has a special place in my heart. I truly loved him and often cried over his failed life. Unlike wise guy Dawkins (who I strongly dislike), Hitchens seemed to me like a hurting child who was abused and generally let down by his family. I could cry even now. I sum up his lectures on atheism in one sentence. "There is no God, and I hate Him."
> 
> That's all I have to say on the matter.



I see. This post is precisely the problem with Wilson boosters. Not investigating his problems with the gospel and his first table problems in favor of his "giving it to the man". This is precisely how the church loses the gospel. 

He still sells "Reformed is not enough" and has not repented of Federal Vision. And to use Acts 28:22 for him is about as appropriate as using it to defend Mormons.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 30, 2021)

Ed Walsh said:


> I have not looked into Doug Wilson too deeply, mainly because I had no reason personally to do so. Nothing at stake. And I loath what to me was just gossip. I've heard tell of some of the "terrible" things about DW. Mostly I listen to innuendos and a general visceral dislike of him. And then there's the FV thing which I also hear he has abanded. So please understand that I personally know nothing against him, so I hold nothing against him. Except that everywhere, he is spoken against. (Acts 28:22)
> 
> But this I do know. When I listen to him cheerfully confront the culture and the Church, I like what he says. My wife doesn't, but I do. I think he's fun to watch. I watched the movie he made with atheist Christopher Hitchens, Collision, and liked it very much. Here's a link to the trailer. Christopher Hitchens has a special place in my heart. I truly loved him and often cried over his failed life. Unlike wise guy Dawkins (who I strongly dislike), Hitchens seemed to me like a hurting child who was abused and generally let down by his family. I could cry even now. I sum up his lectures on atheism in one sentence. "There is no God, and I hate Him."
> 
> That's all I have to say on the matter.



You ought to read some of the court reports. And also read what a pastor says about women.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263319581910654976

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1395007476249112576

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 30, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> In what world has Wilson abandoned Federal Vision? Has he publicly repented?



All I said is that I "heard" that he kicked the FV thing. I was as careful as I knew how to explain that I had never had a reason to look into DW's problems. I only said I liked him to the extent of my experience of listening to him. And that I took a liking to him based on what I had seen and heard him say. Did I do or say something wrong? Am I expected not to like what I hear from the horse's mouth, as it were, just because everyone else dislikes him? It's kind of a ninth commandment thing "hangup" of mine. (John 7:51) I was only relating my opinion based on the minimal knowledge I had. I do not promote him. I used to love Bill Cosby too. Didn't you.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 30, 2021)

@greenbaggins wrote a blog post a long time ago on this subject (did DW kick FV?). Lane originally was convinced he had, if I remember correctly, but since discerned correctly that he had not. 



Ed Walsh said:


> All I said is that I "heard" that he kicked the FV thing. I was as careful as I knew how to explain that I had never had a reason to look into DW's problems. I only said I liked him to the extent of my experience of listening to him. And that I took a liking to him based on what I had seen and heard him say. Did I do or say something wrong? Am I expected not to like what I hear from the horse's mouth, as it were, just because everyone else dislikes him? It's kind of a ninth commandment thing "hangup" of mine. (John 7:51) I was only relating my opinion based on the minimal knowledge I had. I do not promote him. I used to love Bill Cosby too. Didn't you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (Oct 30, 2021)

Ed Walsh said:


> All I said is that I "heard" that he kicked the FV thing. I was as careful as I knew how to explain that I had never had a reason to look into DW's problems. I only said I liked him to the extent of my experience of listening to him. And that I took a liking to him based on what I had seen and heard him say. Did I do or say something wrong? Am I expected not to like what I hear from the horse's mouth, as it were, just because everyone else dislikes him? It's kind of a ninth commandment thing "hangup" of mine. (John 7:51) I was only relating my opinion based on the minimal knowledge I had. I do not promote him. I used to love Bill Cosby too. Didn't you.



@BayouHuguenot just helped you out. I would love to hear you defend how his words square with the qualifications for an elder in the law. Or even just a Christian man. If I posted what he posted, my session, and my Presbytery would discipline me.

As for the ninth commandment, calling evil good is also a breach. So is excusing sin.

I will just leave this here:
Romans 16:17–18: 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, *mark them* which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and *avoid them.* 18 *For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.*

And:
Acts 20:29–31: 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, *to draw away disciples after them.* 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 30, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> @greenbaggins wrote a blog post a long time ago on this subject (did DW kick FV?). Lane originally was convinced he had, if I remember correctly, but since discerned correctly that he had not.


Not quite. Before the "Federal Vision No Mas" post, I had originally been of the mind that DW was orthodox on justification. I recanted that before his post, as well. After he wrote the post, I noted that he had not said anything about his actual theology changing. I had expressed hope that he would leave, but not any sort of confidence that he had actually left.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## B.L. (Oct 30, 2021)

Specific to Uri Brito, I have enjoyed the Kuyperian Commentary podcast from time to time.


----------



## hammondjones (Oct 30, 2021)

[thread title slightly confusing]


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2021)

Can we have this thread title changed to say "CR*E*C"? I was very confused by this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 30, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Can we have this thread title changed to say "CR*E*C"? I was very confused by this.


@Peter Hyatt


----------



## Zach (Oct 30, 2021)

When "owning the libs" becomes more important in theology and politics than a positive statement of the truth we should not be surprised that the truth gets compromised and conduct is bad. And Christians shouldn't be ok with that.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 30, 2021)

Ed Walsh said:


> All I said is that I "heard" that he kicked the FV thing. I was as careful as I knew how to explain that I had never had a reason to look into DW's problems. I only said I liked him to the extent of my experience of listening to him. And that I took a liking to him based on what I had seen and heard him say. Did I do or say something wrong? Am I expected not to like what I hear from the horse's mouth, as it were, just because everyone else dislikes him? It's kind of a ninth commandment thing "hangup" of mine. (John 7:51) I was only relating my opinion based on the minimal knowledge I had. I do not promote him. I used to love Bill Cosby too. Didn't you.



He specifically said he still affirms the Joint FV statement. He just dropped the label so he could better market himself to that Baptist money.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Oct 30, 2021)

Zach said:


> When "owning the libs" becomes more important in theology and politics than a positive statement of the truth we should not be surprised that the truth gets compromised and conduct is bad. And Christians shouldn't be ok with that.


Wilson is a Trump like figure. People like him because he "owns the libs" while ignoring numerous concerning statements and outright heretical theology. Our faith must be more than sticking it to those we disagree with politically.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 30, 2021)

Peter Hyatt said:


> I find this insightful.
> 
> In particular, the quote, "this fellow has irritated the right people for too many years to count,"
> 
> ...


What in the world is this? Is this a parody? Reminds me of a teenage girl talking about her latest crush.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 30, 2021)

I really don't understand why this was posted? Can the OP please clarify the intention behind this thread?


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 30, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> I really don't understand why this was posted? Can the OP please clarify the intention behind this thread?



I thought the same thing at first. But the OP later indicated it was an example of how CREC fans think. 

It is not an endorsement of CREC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 30, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I thought the same thing at first. But the OP later indicated it was an example of how CREC fans think.
> 
> It is not an endorsement of CREC.


I must have missed that. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Oct 30, 2021)

VictorBravo said:


> I thought the same thing at first. But the OP later indicated it was an example of how CREC fans think.
> 
> It is not an endorsement of CREC.


But the quoted section is real?


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 30, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> But the quoted section is real?


Yes:

https://uribrito.com/in-praise-of-the-crec/


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 30, 2021)

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).

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 30, 2021)

Perhaps (speculation; I like Murray on worship), the Lord allows even the best of his saints to err to keep us humble and watchful?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 30, 2021)

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?



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.)


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 30, 2021)

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?


Including many whose lives the Holy Spirit recorded in Scripture.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Oct 30, 2021)

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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2021)

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.


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.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## UserGone221 (Oct 31, 2021)

This morning...









Reformation Day, The Trinity, And The Culture War


Some objected to the critics of the Federal Vision that the social crisis is too great that to be arguing about the Federal Vision. That objection has resurface in recent days in the wake of a soci…




heidelblog.net

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

He also hasn't repented of the heresy of ESS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He also hasn't repented of the heresy of ESS.


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?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2021)

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?
​

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 31, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> But of course, my list of people I want to slap grows longer every day and is now a 10-volume work.



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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 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.


All the more reason to throw support money at me and send me back to a dark jungle somewhere.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

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?



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.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 31, 2021)

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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2021)

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).
> 
> ...





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).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

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.?



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).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 31, 2021)

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).


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.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 31, 2021)

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.?


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Oct 31, 2021)

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).
> 
> ...



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 31, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## Andrew35 (Oct 31, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

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.



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Ironically, one of his best debates was against James White around 2005.



Which debate?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Which debate?



I think the title was "Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers in Christ?" It was somewhat misleading since people on both sides thought it was going to be mainly about Federal Vision and Justification.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 31, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think the title was "Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers in Christ?" It was somewhat misleading since people on both sides thought it was going to be mainly about Federal Vision and Justification.



Gotcha. I'm surprised you think he did well. I thought White smoked him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Gotcha. I'm surprised you think he did well. I thought White smoked him.



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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Christopher Robin (Nov 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think the title was "Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers in Christ?" It was somewhat misleading since people on both sides thought it was going to be mainly about Federal Vision and Justification.


It was, after all. Federal Vision is little more than _a call back to Rome_ anyway.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## B.L. (Nov 1, 2021)

Pergamum said:


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



Yes, he was born in Brazil.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 1, 2021)

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.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2021)

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.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Nov 1, 2021)

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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Nov 1, 2021)

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.
> ...


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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Nov 1, 2021)

Are we really equating ordination with credentialism? That seems like a low and secular view of ordination. As though it is a piece of paper earned at an institution. It is not. 

I am sorry. The man speaks like he's the genuine article. The defender of the faith and so on and so forth. But he has never been ordained. 1 Timothy 4:14. A man must be called and sent. 

If you are willing to disregard this basic tenet of Presbyterian, no, Biblical theology, I would certainly expect the dumpster fire that is Moscow, ID to result.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2021)

Pr Rom is correct. I mistakenly identified credentialism = ordination when I interpreted the above post. No, I don't put much stock in many seminaries these days. I learned exponentially more Christology from reading on my own than I did at RTS. I'm currently teaching myself Syriac (though to be fair I do have a Hebrew background from seminary).

But in terms of ordination, he isn't a real minister.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## py3ak (Nov 1, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 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.


I haven't seen the_ Vice_ article.


ZackF said:


> 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.


Yes, we should be careful not to criticize as creepy bromance in others what we describe as like-minded fellowship among ourselves.


Andrew35 said:


> 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.


It seems to me that debates are often performances, with the _appearance_ of substance sometimes being more important than its reality.


kodos said:


> Are we really equating ordination with credentialism? That seems like a low and secular view of ordination. As though it is a piece of paper earned at an institution. It is not.
> 
> I am sorry. The man speaks like he's the genuine article. The defender of the faith and so on and so forth. But he has never been ordained. 1 Timothy 4:14. A man must be called and sent.
> 
> If you are willing to disregard this basic tenet of Presbyterian, no, Biblical theology, I would certainly expect the dumpster fire that is Moscow, ID to result.


I'm not sure who "we" includes here, but for my part the answer is no. The credentialism charge is related to the observation that Wilson didn't go to seminary. But loads of FV and antecedent people did (and also were ordained). I'll take it that you were using "you" generically in the last sentence.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Pr Rom is correct. I mistakenly identified credentialism = ordination when I interpreted the above post. No, I don't put much stock in many seminaries these days. I learned exponentially more Christology from reading on my own than I did at RTS. I'm currently teaching myself Syriac (though to be fair I do have a Hebrew background from seminary).
> 
> But in terms of ordination, he isn't a real minister.


Ordination is important; but if it were a sufficient condition for avoiding dumpster fires, the Reformation would never have needed to happen.


----------



## kodos (Nov 1, 2021)

py3ak said:


> I'm not sure who "we" includes here, but for my part the answer is no. The credentialism charge is related to the observation that Wilson didn't go to seminary. But loads of FV and antecedent people did (and also were ordained). I'll take it that you were using "you" generically in the last sentence.
> 
> Ordination is important; but if it were a sufficient condition for avoiding dumpster fires, the Reformation would never have needed to happen.



Thanks for clearing that up. There seems to be confusion on this point in the minds of some. I was not directly responding to you but the general thought of "credentialism". His lack of seminary is not the greatest problem with Wilson being in the ministry, as seminary is not a Biblical requirement but, instead, a matter of wisdom for the training of men. But o_rdination is _a biblical requirement.

Wolves easily sneak into the sheepfold. Ordination is not the _sole guardian _of the ministry, but it is an important portion of protecting the sheep as the Church (if it is a true church) must test a man's piety and godliness and orthodoxy before laying hands, which is not to be done hastily. It is a great and valid criticism of a man that exhibits the tendencies he does:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)​
Friends, let us be clear - the Scripture has a very high standard when it comes to teachers. It is valid to judge him harshly for his lack of ordination as he wants to tell others "how it must be" and chastise them!

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (James 3:1)​​Edit: It is a great sign of ungodliness when a man can write screed after screed against the sins of others while writing pages excusing himself of his own sin.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2021)

py3ak said:


> the vice article


It documented a lot of really creepy things Wilson's church was doing, like fathers watching their teenage daughters shower and the elders not going to the police about it. He responded as most serial abusers do: by threatening the people who made the charges.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 2, 2021)

As far as ordination goes, it does concern me that Wilson entered the ministry by illegitimate and even dishonest means. But let's not forget that as far as presbyterians are concerned, no Baptist has a legitimate ordination. And Wilson did come from a Baptist church. I don't say that to attack Baptists per se, but simply as a matter of fact, that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 2, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.


True, because we don’t have what is called a presbytery. But in our circles laying on of hands by elders is followed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## kodos (Nov 2, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> As far as ordination goes, it does concern me that Wilson entered the ministry by illegitimate and even dishonest means. But let's not forget that as far as presbyterians are concerned, no Baptist has a legitimate ordination. And Wilson did come from a Baptist church. I don't say that to attack Baptists per se, but simply as a matter of fact, that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.



As @VictorBravo said - not 100% accurate. Reformed Baptists are ordained by the laying on of hands of church elders, even if they do not have a Presbytery. I believe the RPCNA (for one) has respected Reformed Baptist ordination as far as I know (when they have been ordained by elders) when receiving ministers who change convictions to become Presbyterian, not requiring another ordination when their credentials are received. We will examine them as a Presbytery but not re-ordain them when they receive a call.

EDIT: But also - when the man's convictions changed, his practice should have as well and he should have submitted himself to examination and ordination requirements as a good Presbyterian would. I am working with a local man who is a Baptist and wants to enter the RPCNA. He is willing to do whatever Presbytery asks of him. That is godly submission and trust in the Lord.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## smalltown_puritan (Nov 2, 2021)

kodos said:


> Reformed Baptists are ordained by the laying on of hands of church elders, even if they do not have a Presbytery. I believe the RPCNA (for one) has respected Reformed Baptist ordination as far as I know (when they have been ordained by elders) when receiving ministers who change convictions to become Presbyterian, not requiring another ordination when their credentials are received. We will examine them as a Presbytery but not re-ordain them when they receive a call.


I can attest to this - I was ordained as a Baptist (through the laying on hands by other ordained ministers). I served pastorally in an SBC congregation for 3 years, and then in a reformed baptist congregation for another 3 years. As I was brought to Presbyterian convictions through the correction of God's Word, I was received as a minister into the RPCNA. I was certainly examined by my Presbytery, but not re-ordained. 

Presbyterians do not re-baptize (if it is a true baptism), nor re-ordain (if it is a true ordination).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Nov 2, 2021)

kodos said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. There seems to be confusion on this point in the minds of some. I was not directly responding to you but the general thought of "credentialism". His lack of seminary is not the greatest problem with Wilson being in the ministry, as seminary is not a Biblical requirement but, instead, a matter of wisdom for the training of men. But o_rdination is _a biblical requirement.
> 
> Wolves easily sneak into the sheepfold. Ordination is not the _sole guardian _of the ministry, but it is an important portion of protecting the sheep as the Church (if it is a true church) must test a man's piety and godliness and orthodoxy before laying hands, which is not to be done hastily. It is a great and valid criticism of a man that exhibits the tendencies he does:
> 
> ...


Indeed. This can't be the sole criticism, however, as it would let many of Wilson's associates off the hook.



BayouHuguenot said:


> It documented a lot of really creepy things Wilson's church was doing, like fathers watching their teenage daughters shower and the elders not going to the police about it. He responded as most serial abusers do: by threatening the people who made the charges.


There are some police forces where people get treated that way -- _reporting_ a crime is a bigger deal than _perpetrating_ one. I've heard of such cases in England and San Francisco.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2021)

py3ak said:


> Indeed. This can't be the sole criticism, however, as it would let many of Wilson's associates off the hook.
> 
> 
> There are some police forces where people get treated that way -- _reporting_ a crime is a bigger deal than _perpetrating_ one. I've heard of such cases in England and San Francisco.



In one sense, true. Reporting on a Kirk member is very dangerous. On the other hand, church leaders are by law mandated reporters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Nov 2, 2021)

Oh, I wasn't putting two and two together quite like that. Just observing that there is a widespread pattern in our world where the person who _brings attention_ to the problem is treated as though they _created_ that problem.


----------

