Debunking Doug Wilson

[TheOldCourse]

So the OPC has problems with Wilson because he advised a man who resigned from the OPC to ignore their call to discipline?

From the first blog post: "Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him."

I'm not seeing the issue with counsel like that.
1) If the guy doesn't belong to the denomination then it doesn't follow for him to be under their discipline.
2) I found it ironic that you say Doug Wilson cannot receive justice in his own Presbytery. That is quite the claim and quite the accusation of ineptitude regarding the elders within. (No worries though, it doesn't look like Wilson's church is signed on to the International Presbyterian Court. They'll probably let it slide.)

Even if the church/denomination the man was a part of says "No resigning once you've been accused." I can't help but think there might be a little confusion between a jilted session (all three leaving/resigning), disagreeable members (12 who forced a vote), and an organizing pastor in a church only two years old.

How was the situation explained to Wilson? (All the details or, "I'm out, but they keep pestering.")
Why would he not tell a man who had moved on to another church to ignore the old?

To me it looks like a case of Proverbs 26:17 in the worst case and off chance.
"Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears."

Well he was a member of the denomination. He made vows to that church. If you come under discipline you cannot simply just say you were crossing your fingers when you made the vows and run off and join another church. To violate the vows you took before God and church is a very, very serious matter. Of course Wilson would approve because he ordained himself and has made his church a home for countless men running from discipline. It's become an ecclesiastical penal colony for those who cannot abide the confessional restraints of other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations.

Frankly, this shouldn't be a debate. Wilson was one of the principal authors of the FV statement. Even while he has "distanced" himself from FV as a label he has admitted there has been no substantial shift in what he believes and said less than two years ago that he would not retract anything he signed on to in that statement. He just doesn't put it to the forefront as it would damage the image he's cultivated over the years. Peter Leithart and Rich Lusk pastor churches in his denomination and Leithart has taught at his college. Wilson wrote an essay honoring James Jordan in his festschrift. He's FV to the core. Everything else aside, this should be all we need to be done with him. I'm concerned that you are so willing to defend a man who teaches that which has been roundly condemned by virtually every confessionally Reformed body. Perhaps you were unaware of how close his ties are to that heresy, but you cannot be so any longer. Even if he didn't subscribe himself (he does), a man who defends heretics is no friend to the truth, no matter how manly a beard he grows.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You will always hear people chiming into these discussions (and I used to be one of them) about how wonderful Doug Wilson's books are on marriage and the family. They are not. They are full of legalism and they will fill your head with silly and irrational ideas.

 

[RamistThomist]

So the OPC has problems with Wilson because he advised a man who resigned from the OPC to ignore their call to discipline?

Yeah, that's pretty huge. It's a slap in the face of what it means to be Reformed.

Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him."

What Wilson didn't understand is that the OPC doesn't have to accept the resignation, which means they can prosecute the minister and even excommunicate him.

That is quite the claim and quite the accusation of ineptitude regarding the elders within.

Study up on the history of Christ Kirk and ineptitude is the nicest way to put it. Some of these elders advised a girl to marry a known pedophile.

(No worries though, it doesn't look like Wilson's church is signed on to the International Presbyterian Court. They'll probably let it slide.)

That is correct. they are not in communion with mature, Reformed bodies.

How was the situation explained to Wilson? (All the details or, "I'm out, but they keep pestering.")
Why would he not tell a man who had moved on to another church to ignore the old?

There have literally been hundreds of pages written on this over 10+ years. In any case, I've provided links to all the documentation.

 

[RamistThomist]

Douglas Wilson is self-ordained? I did not know that! You'd think that alone should send alarms ringing. It's very much un-Reformed, indeed patently unbiblical.

That is correct. He was guitar dude at his church and then one day the pastor left and he sort of took on preaching duties. I have a blog post at tentsofshem.wordpress.com (type in Doug Wilson and turretin) that shows the problem.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jacob,
I vaguely recall what u say in regards to ordination; is Moscow a congregational church?

 

[RamistThomist]

Jacob,
I vaguely recall what u say in regards to ordination; is Moscow a congregational church?

It's trickier than that. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Presbytery has an advisory role but can't really do anything. That's why I said they rubber stamp. They can't really challenge him.

 

[Krak3n]

But seriously, @Krak3n, I asked earlier about what good Douglas Wilson has done. What is it? It seems to me you are willing to balance it against all of the controversy.

If you are asking seriously, I appreciate that. In an earlier post I mentioned some of the things that have been started from their church, at least involved in some way.

The books and blog are the things that I am most familiar with. So I am looking at this as someone who has actually read what he has said and scratch my head when he is painted as the devil. Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.

This means that I can't point to just one thing as evidence of his worth. He writes alot, his family (wife, children, & in-laws) also write and are active with podcasts as well. Having their own publishing company enables the claim of nepotism, sure, but people are buying them and find them worthy of continued patronage.

This leads to another question. Ok, don't support Doug because of whatever, does that mean his family and his church cannot produce anything worth our time? Like the schools and online classes? (I haven't used these, I can't speak to how they rank, but I'm not opposed to someone attending.)

 

[Tom Hart]

If you are asking seriously, I appreciate that. In an earlier post I mentioned some of the things that have been started from their church, at least involved in some way.

I am asking seriously. I don't know a whole lot about Wilson and his associates. I haven't read any of them. But from what I hear, the problems are too big to ignore. He's self-ordained, for starters. I'm a Presbyterian. I can't ignore that. Then there's the trail of damage and the countless controversies, to the extent of doctrinal differences on some very important points. What is it that so many Reformed have against Wilson?

In biblical terms, bad trees produce bad fruit. It's hard to understand that a man at the root of so much trouble could produce something untainted.

That doesn't necessarily mean he is not worth reading. Plato is worth reading. Confucius is worth reading. Neither were anything close to Christian. And that shows in their writing. I would imagine that Wilson's writing also carries his errors. So the question is, Is it worth the risk?

Reading Wilson is not like Plato or Confucius. You know when you're reading them that they're not believers. Wilson claims to be a Christian and he uses theological language. Yet teaches apparently harmful doctrines. It can be subtle.

Unless you're prepared to say everyone is wrong about him.

The books and blog are the things that I am most familiar with. So I am looking at this as someone who has actually read what he has said and scratch my head when he is painted as the devil. Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.

Do you think that any of his bad theology shows up in his writing? I'm asking honestly if you've ever noticed anything.

This means that I can't point to just one thing as evidence of his worth. He writes alot, his family (wife, children, & in-laws) also write and are active with podcasts as well. Having their own publishing company enables the claim of nepotism, sure, but people are buying them and find them worthy of continued patronage.

I don't know what they've written. I haven't read their books or listened to their podcasts. What is it that should commend them? The mere fact that they have an audience is not a satisfying answer.

This leads to another question. Ok, don't support Doug because of whatever, does that mean his family and his church cannot produce anything worth our time? Like the schools and online classes? (I haven't used these, I can't speak to how they rank, but I'm not opposed to someone attending.)

A lot of people are opposed to the materials because of what, according to them, is harmful stuff. Some very upstanding Reformed people vehemently oppose Wilson and his group's piblications.

Can they produce something worth our time? Probably. But is it worth the risk?

 

[RamistThomist]

As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.

But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:

1) Made moves to join a Reformed body (NAPARC or its equivalent) where he would be accountable. Since in the CREC the pastor is a member of the church and not the Presbytery, and the Presbytery only has advisory role, he is not accountable. Plain and simple.

2) Be publicly and theologically examined by a heavyweight like Joel Beeke.

https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/turretin-vs-doug-wilson-on-calling/

 

[Bill Duncan]

As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.

But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:

1) Made moves to join a Reformed body (NAPARC or its equivalent) where he would be accountable. Since in the CREC the pastor is a member of the church and not the Presbytery, and the Presbytery only has advisory role, he is not accountable. Plain and simple.

2) Be publicly and theologically examined by a heavyweight like Joel Beeke.

https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/turretin-vs-doug-wilson-on-calling/

Just curios. You are in the EPC, Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Your denomination allows women to be ordained as pastors and elders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Beeke have an issue with this?

 

[Krak3n]

I am asking seriously. I don't know a whole lot about Wilson and his associates. I haven't read any of them. But from what I hear, the problems are too big to ignore. He's self-ordained, for starters. I'm a Presbyterian. I can't ignore that. Then there's the trail of damage and the countless controversies, to the extent of doctrinal differences on some very important points. What is it that so many Reformed have against Wilson?

In biblical terms, bad trees produce bad fruit. It's hard to understand that a man at the root of so much trouble could produce something untainted.

That doesn't necessarily mean he is not worth reading. Plato is worth reading. Confucius is worth reading. Neither were anything close to Christian. And that shows in their writing. I would imagine that Wilson's writing also carries his errors. So the question is, Is it worth the risk?

Reading Wilson is not like Plato or Confucius. You know when you're reading them that they're not believers. Wilson claims to be a Christian and he uses theological languagee. Yet teaches apparently harmful doctrines. It can be subtle.

Unless you're prepared to say everyone is wrong about him.



Do you think that any of his bad theology shows up in his writing? I'm asking honestly if you've ever noticed anything.



I don't know what they've written. I haven't read their books or listened to their podcasts. What is it that should commend them? The mere fact that they have an audience is not a satisfying answer.



A lot of people are opposed to the materials because of what, according to them, is harmful stuff. Some very upstanding Reformed people vehemently oppose Wilson and his group's piblications.

Can they produce something worth our time? Probably. But is it worth the risk?

Am I prepared to say everyone is wrong about him? No, my contention is that's it's easy to hop on the bandwagon around here specifically. Then people feel free to say things that will gather up "Likes" and "Amens" without a concern for judgment of the things we say. That's what initially brought me to speak up in this thread. Do I think well of him? Yes. Do I have time to chase every time he's demeaned on this site? Not a chance.

Do I think his bad theology has shown up in his writing? No, I honestly haven't noticed it in any of the works I've read. (I mean, I'm not a Presbyterian so certain things go without saying. ;^) I mainly read him for family and for culture information. I recommend his work in both of those categories. His blog normally addresses whats going on in Christianity, culture, and politics, but he has addressed some of the charges thrown at him there too.

No one here has to read anything by him. Evidence (witness) is only required for condemnation. What members here ought to be careful of is deciding they can make a judgment regarding someone by hearsay. They don't have to look beyond what they wish to, that's for their own conscience to take into account - I don't expect anyone to need exhaustive knowledge to make a just decision. That said, I'd advise they have more to go on than gossip from the Internet. This is not directed at you personally, it is a general statement regarding this thread.

[1Ti 5:19 ASV] Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses.

If Wilson's writings and doings don't come up for what your studying, you probably shouldn't be too worried.

If you're honestly new to the Reformed fun then you probably don't know what the FV stuff is about. Familiarize yourself so you can decide what level of hell to throw people in on your own. ;^)

As someone who's read everything he wrote (blog and book) until 2015, I agree. Some of the stuff he writes sounds good. Angels in the Architecture was really good (if factually wrong). And he has since exiled Doug Jones to Dubai.

But you can't call yourself a Reformed minister if you ordained yourself. If he truly repented for teaching justification by spirit-wrought sanctity, then something like the following would have happened:

1) Made moves to join a Reformed body (NAPARC or its equivalent) where he would be accountable. Since in the CREC the pastor is a member of the church and not the Presbytery, and the Presbytery only has advisory role, he is not accountable. Plain and simple.

2) Be publicly and theologically examined by a heavyweight like Joel Beeke.

https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/turretin-vs-doug-wilson-on-calling/

Pull the bit about Doug Jones from another blog? I read that too. What did Jones actually say about it?

As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make. Who's is it then? If it's not for us, you and me nobodies, we could look to his own denomination.

"Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise. There have been no charges brought against him, thus this is not a judicial trial. It is a voluntary examination requested by the Christ Church session."

It turns out that they have discussed this very thing. See appendix F on page 86.
https://www.crechurches.org/documents/minutes/2004crec.pdf

From the "Conclusion" of Appendix F
----
Brothers and sisters, we want you to know that Pastor Wilson is a faithful minister of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. He loves Jesus. He loves the church of Jesus Christ. We have personally witnessed his dedication to gospel ministry. We are pleased to serve our Lord together with him within the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. We are delighted to call him our brother. All of us can say – without any hesitation - that Pastor Wilson’s teaching has greatly influenced our ministries. He is a great blessing to us all.

Congregation, receive Pastor Wilson with all joy and thanksgiving. We encourage your continued confidence in Pastor Wilson as he watches over your souls with the other elders of Christ Church. He is a minister in good standing in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and he is robustly orthodox. We are convinced that Presbyterian and Reformed churches can learn much from him. “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct.... Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive to them, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must given account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Heb. 13:7, 17).
---

 

[Herald]

I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.

 

[Bill Duncan]

I am curious as to why my fellow Baptists would be attracted to Doug Wilson? Is it because of his position on family and homeschooling? FV really shouldn't be a thing for Baptists as it's an offshoot of things Baptists don't believe.

I think we read those for whom we believe will reinforce our preconceived positions and will give us ammunition to be better apologists for our cause. I have done this my whole life, to a fault, which has led me to Wilson and others in his camp. Homeschooling became a religion itself for me.
The man has every right to work within the parameter of his camp. We should all stay in our own camp. There is a place in the church for distinctives of belief. That's why I don't read Baptists. Not that I condemn their system, I just don't need to muddy my own water. I never recommend Baptists read Presbyterians. Though we can commune here on this forum, we don't need to get in bed together.

 

[Tom Hart]

No one here has to read anything by him. Evidence (witness) is only required for condemnation. What members here ought to be careful of is deciding they can make a judgment regarding someone by hearsay. They don't have to look beyond what they wish to, that's for their own conscience to take into account - I don't expect anyone to need exhaustive knowledge to make a just decision. That said, I'd advise they have more to go on than gossip from the Internet. This is not directed at you personally, it is a general statement regarding this thread.

If you're honestly new to the Reformed fun then you probably don't know what the FV stuff is about.

I know enough about Federal Vision. The ideas have been around for a little while, and proponents have not really hidden their views. Are you not bothered by their takes on the sacraments? Or that doctrine on which the church either stands or falls, justification?

Further, it's not just here on PB that people have railed against FV. FV has been rejected by the PCA, OPC and RPCNA (as well as a number of other denominations) not to mention the many pastors and theologians that have spoken out against it.

As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make.

Well, he's not an ordained minister. Apart from very exceptional circumstances (consider the Waldensians) if a man is neither called nor ordained he is not a minister. Not a Reformed minister, at least. Reformed people don't believe that individuals can simply set themselves up as elders.

It's not an issue of whose "call" that is to make. The fact is that there was no call to begin with!

...we could look to his own denomination.

His own denomination. Hmm. About that...

 

[TheOldCourse]

Can I be misled, sure, but I take his own words with more weight than a few blog writers.

Perhaps this is where you are mistaken. If it was a few loonies with discernment blogs I would agree. The issue is that it's not. The church courts of multiple denominations have ruled that FV is heresy. At least the OPC, URCNA, RPCNA, ARP, PCA, and RCUS have all done it. Many respected ministers and theologians who are by no means quick to condemn a man without careful consideration have concluded that Wilson is outside the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy including our own Lane Keister, a more judicious and charitable minister you will hardly find. It's not hearsay. It's based on his own writings and actions.

As for the lack of his ordination, Jacob already demonstrated it. The denomination of which he is the pope rubber-stamping his position hardly qualifies as confirmation. I know that you are a Baptist and as such don't agree with Presbyterian polity, but Wilson does not claim to be a Congregationalist.

Keep reading his other work if you like. As Jacob and others have mentioned there is more than a little legalism in it and he's a poor historian but most of it only has a hint of his truly heretical positions and I can't say there's no value in it, considered alone. But I urge you to look deeper into this matter so that when you do recommend his other writings you can do so with appropriate caveats. Read some of what Lane and Scott Clark have written on the subject. Read the study reports by the OPC, URCNA, etc. Read past threads here. This is not a light matter to toy with.

I've read many of his family and cultural books--his marriage book was actually the text assigned for my wife and I's premarital counselling. At the time I appreciated them but as I've become more aware of his theological issues I just don't see that it's worth it to sift the wheat from the chaff when the chaff is so poisonous. Now I tend to recommend Beeke instead.

 

[Herald]

I think we read those for whom we believe will reinforce our preconceived positions and will give us ammunition to be better apologists for our cause. I have done this my whole life, to a fault, which has led me to Wilson and others in his camp. Homeschooling became a religion itself for me.
The man has every right to work within the parameter of his camp. We should all stay in our own camp. There is a place in the church for distinctives of belief. That's why I don't read Baptists. Not that I condemn their system, I just don't need to muddy my own water. I never recommend Baptists read Presbyterians. Though we can commune here on this forum, we don't need to get in bed together.

Bill, you are fencing your camp a bit too much for my taste. Many Presbyterians have profited greatly from reading Spurgeon, just as many Baptists have profited from reading Sproul. Wilson is a bit different. Whereas Presbyterians and Baptists share many theological distinctives, FV is so far off the Baptist reservation as to make it irrelevant.

 

[Bill Duncan]

I have read them too. The problem is that I have not benefitted any more reading them than I have Augustine, Gregory, Calvin, Peter Van Mastricht, Boston, Vos, Van Til, Kline, Joseph Pipa, Ryan McGraw and all in between. Even with the variance between these men, they never gave me cause to muddy my covenant theology. When I read a Baptist, our difference on the Covenant strains our perspective.

That is why I would not read Wilson, it strains my Covenant perspective.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

and he's a poor historian

And the award for understatement of the year goes to ... This post.

 

[RamistThomist]

As to whether or not he is a Reformed minister is really not your judgment to make. Who's is it then? If it's not for us, you and me nobodies, we could look to his own denomination.

The Reformed standards are fairly clear on this point.

"Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise.

This is simply not true. He went from guitar dude to pastor in an independent church.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just curios. You are in the EPC, Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Your denomination allows women to be ordained as pastors and elders. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Beeke have an issue with this?

Deacons and ruling elders, but not pastors.

Yeah, Beeke would disagree with us, but my denomination isn't a haven for people escaping church discipline from NAPARC churches

 

[Bill Duncan]

Deacons and ruling elders, but not pastors.

Yeah, Beeke would disagree with us, but my denomination isn't a haven for people escaping church discipline from NAPARC churches

WOMEN IN ORDAINED OFFICE
The understanding of the role of women in the life of the church varies widely. For example, one Presbyterian denomination mandates that women be elected as pastors, ruling elders, and deacons. Another prohibits this. Yet equally sincere, Bible-believing Christians differ on this issue. In the EPC, the decision to elect women as pastors, ruling elders, and deacons is left to the discretion of the presbytery and congregation, respectively. We believe that under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, God’s people should be free to follow His leading.

This is from your Website. So, the holy Spirit is leading women to be Pastors and elders.

My point is that even your denomination has serious biblical error. So I wouldn't beat up too much on someone else's denomination until I got my own house in order.

 

[RamistThomist]

My point is that even your denomination has serious biblical error. So I wouldn't beat up too much on someone else's denomination until I got my own house in order.

Off the top of my head I can't think of which churches (if any) have women pastors. In any case, even if women deacons are wrong, it's not on the level of justification as faith + works.

Nor are we shielding child rapists from the law.

Nor are we blackmailing rape victims.

Nor are we encouraging unknowing girls to marry known pedophiles and have kids with them.

Nor are we telling pastors to spurn their oaths before God. That's what Wilson did on the OPC. Let's unpack that for a moment. Wilson believes in the objectivity of hte covenant. So basically he told the outlaw pastor, "Even though you called down a covenant curse from Yahweh on your head by breaking the oath, go ahead and spurn that oath."

But all that aside. My church has women deacons. Maybe we are wrong. But we are not "hiding it." We are not being clever and misleading on justification by faith-works. We haven't spent the past 20 years teaching justification by spirit-sanctity and then saying, "No, no, we believe the confession" when called on it.

 

[RamistThomist]

If someone wants a reason why I am in the EPC, it's fairly simple:

1) The ARP church was too far away.
2) AAPC was the other option.
3) The church I am at preaches the gospel.

Not really a hard choice.

 

[TheOldCourse]

If someone wants a reason why I am in the EPC, it's fairly simple:

1) The ARP church was too far away.
2) AAPC was the other option.
3) The church I am at preaches the gospel.

Not really a hard choice.

Sadly, not a lot of choices in Louisiana for P&R churches.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sadly, not a lot of choices in Louisiana for P&R churches.

A lot of church planters who come to La. are utterly clueless on this point. They don't realize that once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time. The northern part of the state defaults to some variety of Baptist. The southern half is French and Roman Catholic. Simply being the big star in RUF isn't going to cut it.

 

[Tom Hart]

Ordination of female elders and deacons, while wrong, is hardly on the same level as a denial of justification by faith. I would think that's fairly obvious.

Douglas Wilson and others are socially conservative. That's not bad. But they'd be far better off being a little more conservative concerning the gospel.

 

[Edward]

once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time.

Six PCA churches and a handful of plants between Little Rock and the Gulf of Mexico. when you throw in the southern half of Arkansas. Bossier City and Leesville are probably worth an effort because of the military bases. The Monroe area should be workable with the right model and a long term commitment from First Presbyterian Jackson. And that's about as good as it's going to get in trans-Mississippi Louisiana. Looks like there could be a couple of opportunities in the Florida Parishes.

 

[Bill Duncan]

A lot of church planters who come to La. are utterly clueless on this point. They don't realize that once you cross the Mississippi River, it drops off big time. The northern part of the state defaults to some variety of Baptist. The southern half is French and Roman Catholic. Simply being the big star in RUF isn't going to cut it.

I wasn't trying to hurt you at all as I feel your pain. Merely I was trying to point out that there is much work to be done in our own denominations without picking on Wilson's. I like your thoughts and your resolve.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Six PCA churches and a handful of plants between Little Rock and the Gulf of Mexico. when you throw in the southern half of Arkansas. Bossier City and Leesville are probably worth an effort because of the military bases. The Monroe area should be workable with the right model and a long term commitment from First Presbyterian Jackson. And that's about as good as it's going to get in trans-Mississippi Louisiana. Looks like there could be a couple of opportunities in the Florida Parishes.

I lived in the greater NOLA area and there's not even much there. Just a couple PCA churches which are either liberal or Baptisterian. One would think you could plant a confessional church in the area but it's probably a tough nut to crack. The white people are all Papists and the black people are all Baptists or prosperity gospel charismatics. Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former. The state, for the most part, otherwise is a wasteland for P&R folks.

 

[RamistThomist]

Alexandria has a solid OPC church at least, and I'm guessing the Natchitoches OPC is good too since I think it was planted by the former.

I got married in Pineville OPC. Good people.

The Nachitoches church is also good people.