Sons of Patriarchy

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

What evidence are you expecting? I'm satisfied with the multiple testimonies of people saying the same thing. Today's episode, for example, claims that New Saint Andrews knew about a case of sexual abuse but intentionally decided to keep it "in house." That's consistent with what others have said about DW's empire and how it deals with abuse. It's also consistent with what DW has written in his book Fidelity. So, in my view, it's completely credible.
 
What evidence are you expecting? I'm satisfied with the multiple testimonies of people saying the same thing. Today's episode, for example, claims that New Saint Andrews knew about a case of sexual abuse but intentionally decided to keep it "in house." That's consistent with what others have said about DW's empire and how it deals with abuse. It's also consistent with what DW has written in his book Fidelity. So, in my view, it's completely credible.
SoP has indicated it is going to release police reports and the like, as you've indicated above. That's what I'm waiting on.
 
I guess so. I was just thinking if someone made a podcast on me.
Have any type of popular success in ministry, and they will. I read where someone wrote "if you dont want to get talked about, dont go into ministry." Think about the most beloved Pastor you can imagine, and someone, somewhere has said they are the child of the devil.
 
Have any type of popular success in ministry, and they will. I read where someone wrote "if you dont want to get talked about, dont go into ministry." Think about the most beloved Pastor you can imagine, and someone, somewhere has said they are the child of the devil.
You don't even have to go into ministry for that! I know this from first hand experience.
 
I think our definition of ministry is a little off from scripture. All believers are to minister.
That is true, but what people usually mean by ministers and ministry; are those formally ordained and are engaged in ministry as vocation. While all believers should be engaged in some sort of ministry, not all believers can engage in all ministries. There are certain ministries where people must be "approved." This would be things like preaching, street preaching, teaching, missionary, etc. This is kind of where the Reformed concept of "ministry as life" comes in; that is, regardless if I am a preacher, or a dishwasher; I am called to be an ambassador, minister, and representative of Christ; demonstrating my faith by my ethic, attitude, and sanctification. Whether you are in a pulpit or on a construction site; holiness, love, and patience are going to minister.
 
Last edited:
Agreed except for one question. Why these two? I don't see these being approved in the New Testament. The brethren just go do them.
Because both have to be qualified, and ordained. Paul and Barnabas, before their missionary journey were commissioned, and hands laid on them to do their work. Acts 13:2-3. Street Preaching for obvious reasons, because it is preaching; and someone preaching must be qualified whether it is in a pulpit or parking lot. A Christian (at least in my opinion) can hand out tracts, and engage with people one on one; but that is going to be more conversational evangelism. When a street preacher gets on a soapbox, he is still proclaiming "thus saith the Lord." Also, it is probably a good idea just to let your elders know you plan on handing out tracts, and get approval. We have to remember that when we are on the street, we also represent that local body; plus, they can look to see if others may be interested to do it as a team.

Extreme circumstances may call for extreme measures; but, outside those circumstances, any sort of evangelical, missionary, or preaching/teaching type things need to be approved by elders. If they say no, and that you are not qualified or ready, trust them and be patient. We all desire that none should perish, but we all dont know what we should know to do that proficiently.
 
Last edited:
Street Preaching for obvious reasons, because it is preaching; and someone preaching must be qualified whether it is in a pulpit or parking lot.
But are they equal. Street preaching and preaching from the pulpit are different. One is the proclamation of the gospel to the lost. The other is an aspect of shepherding the sheep. We see elders ordained, but do we see street preachers ordained?
 
But are they equal. Street preaching and preaching from the pulpit are different. One is the proclamation of the gospel to the lost. The other is an aspect of shepherding the sheep. We see elders ordained, but do we see street preachers ordained?
Shepherding, I believe, would encompass the entirety of Pastoral duties, from preaching, to teaching, to counseling, to accountability, to evangelizing, etc. But, preaching is only to be done by those qualified to do so. Preaching and Shepherding are not synonymous, Preaching is a part of Shepherding. But just like no congregant would get up from the pew and assume to stand in the pulpit and preach, so too, no congregant should assume to go into society and do the same. A person needs to be tested, and trained on how to rightly divide the Word of God, before they can expect to open it up to others outside their family domain..
 
Last edited:
Ok, listened to episodes 1 through 6. Some truth some thoughtfulness, but …

Peter Bell, the head of this project, is basically on a witch hunt with very little concern for biblical parameters. Open mocking, smirking, and scorning of confessional faith and practice, with no qualifications offered …

I’m done.

DW, Moscowites, reconstructionism (etc,) have been a scourge on the church since my youngest years of faith. I pray regularly for these teachings and men to fall, and the. repent or be providentially removed (aka, Christ-ordered imprecatory prayers).

“Sons of Patriarchy” is not a Christlike tool to these ends. It is a ‘David French’ version of critical commentary; even when they get things right, they taint it with unbiblical diatribes. It’s not godly, holy, humble, or helpful.
 
Ok, listened to episodes 1 through 6. Some truth some thoughtfulness, but …

Peter Bell, the head of this project, is basically on a witch hunt with very little concern for biblical parameters. Open mocking, smirking, and scorning of confessional faith and practice, with no qualifications offered …

I’m done.

DW, Moscowites, reconstructionism (etc,) have been a scourge on the church since my youngest years of faith. I pray regularly for these teachings and men to fall, and the. repent or be providentially removed (aka, Christ-ordered imprecatory prayers).

“Sons of Patriarchy” is not a Christlike tool to these ends. It is a ‘David French’ version of critical commentary; even when they get things right, they taint it with unbiblical diatribes. It’s not godly, holy, humble, or helpful.
Yeah, I stopped listening to it, too.
 
Ok, listened to episodes 1 through 6. Some truth some thoughtfulness, but …

Peter Bell, the head of this project, is basically on a witch hunt with very little concern for biblical parameters. Open mocking, smirking, and scorning of confessional faith and practice, with no qualifications offered …

I’m done.

DW, Moscowites, reconstructionism (etc,) have been a scourge on the church since my youngest years of faith. I pray regularly for these teachings and men to fall, and the. repent or be providentially removed (aka, Christ-ordered imprecatory prayers).

“Sons of Patriarchy” is not a Christlike tool to these ends. It is a ‘David French’ version of critical commentary; even when they get things right, they taint it with unbiblical diatribes. It’s not godly, holy, humble, or helpful.
Good summary.

It's a dog's breakfast in the way it presents content.

Even when it presents stories of abuse, some of the "abuse" is vague and hard to lay at anybody's feet except an abusive husband o a parent that was whacko. As far as showing that the CREC is a weirdo magnet, that may be true, but it's strange how the episodes are laid out.

Even the way it presents a (to the author's mind) devastating critique against "Christian Nationalism," it presents Classical Liberal conceptions of liberty vs Burkean conceptions and labels that latter as inherently "Christian Nationalism" and that the State could never deign to uphold the first Table of the Law.

There are many reasons to critique Moscow, but this is presented from a woke and classically liberal mood and invites the listener who already agrees that they should scorn anything that Russ Moore would disapprove of.

That's to say that it's incompetent in its critique. It cannot land a critique against DW because it ends up making most Christians disagree with the Egalitarian, Classic Liberal, and woke conception of Church, Politics, and history. You end up with more eye-rolling than believing that DW or anyone in his orbit would be "exposed" to it because his real issues are hidden behind attacking everyone to the right of the podcast editors.
 
On another angle: I wonder if they will address the fact that Wilson's disciples are now attacking him for being soft on women and Jews. But then again, he created that environment.
 
On another angle: I wonder if they will address the fact that Wilson's disciples are now attacking him for being soft on women and Jews. But then again, he created that environment.
Who are Wilson's main disciples? I think some of them are Joel Webbon, Jeff Durbin, and Brian Sauve.
 
Who are Wilson's main disciples? I think some of them are Joel Webbon, Jeff Durbin, and Brian Sauve.
I wouldn't put Durbin in this list. He certainly is friendly toward him, but he is usually doing his own thing. He is also not a fan of Wolfe, and recently declined to speak at Webbon's conference. I really appreciate the anti abortion work he does as well. My opinion at least.
 
Good summary.

It's a dog's breakfast in the way it presents content.

Even when it presents stories of abuse, some of the "abuse" is vague and hard to lay at anybody's feet except an abusive husband o a parent that was whacko. As far as showing that the CREC is a weirdo magnet, that may be true, but it's strange how the episodes are laid out.

Even the way it presents a (to the author's mind) devastating critique against "Christian Nationalism," it presents Classical Liberal conceptions of liberty vs Burkean conceptions and labels that latter as inherently "Christian Nationalism" and that the State could never deign to uphold the first Table of the Law.

There are many reasons to critique Moscow, but this is presented from a woke and classically liberal mood and invites the listener who already agrees that they should scorn anything that Russ Moore would disapprove of.

That's to say that it's incompetent in its critique. It cannot land a critique against DW because it ends up making most Christians disagree with the Egalitarian, Classic Liberal, and woke conception of Church, Politics, and history. You end up with more eye-rolling than believing that DW or anyone in his orbit would be "exposed" to it because his real issues are hidden behind attacking everyone to the right of the podcast editors.
“Weirdo Magnet” - a masterfully ‘attractional’ phrase, orienting the compass to true north.
 
Whilst I agree with the issues described in the above comments and I’m not fully caught up, what it is at least showing is there are very serious issues in the culture of “Christ Church” and there is a deep historic pattern of a failure by leadership to stand up for and support women and children. When the so-called church fails to protect or stand up for the most vulnerable or abused in her midst how can God be with them?
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree with the issues described in the above comments and I’m not fully caught up, what it is at least showing is there are very serious issues in the culture of “Christ Church” and there is a deep historic pattern of a failure by leadership to stand up for and support women and children. When the so-called church fails to protect or stand up for the most vulnerable or abused in her midst how can God be with them?
I have long thought the CREC and Wilson operate on a very faulty theology and do not dispute the abuse at the hands of Shepherds and an un-Biblical theology.

My issue is that the podcast obscures the abuses by its naive and incompetent articulation of the issues.
 
I have long thought the CREC and Wilson operate on a very faulty theology and do not dispute the abuse at the hands of Shepherds and an un-Biblical theology.

My issue is that the podcast obscures the abuses by its naive and incompetent articulation of the issues.
I see.

For some like myself who are largely ignorant of the CREC it is at the very least shining a light on things.
 
I have long thought the CREC and Wilson operate on a very faulty theology and do not dispute the abuse at the hands of Shepherds and an un-Biblical theology.

My issue is that the podcast obscures the abuses by its naive and incompetent articulation of the issues.

Do you mean by the Monday episodes first focussing on issues around the development of Christian Nationalism?
 
Do you mean by the Monday episodes first focussing on issues around the development of Christian Nationalism?
That and more. The political analysis is poor - hearing only from Classic Liberalism and seeing any form of Conservatism (including that of an Orthodox Jew!) as Christian Nationalism.

The only decent interview I've heard so far was the interview with the Marine.

The author is theologically inept and prefers to psychologize as to why Wilson and others are doing things rather than having a facility with theological issues and an ability to accurately and pointedly critique them.
 
A perfect example of how "woke" the podcast is: it featured Thabiti Anyabwile in the last episode. It brings up white fragility, etc.

Again, it's not as if I agree with Wilson's views on slavery, etc but the critical theory language used throughout the series tells the crowd that would be attracted to Wilson to essentially ignore the podcast.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top