We can say it another way: Has every conservative Reformed body in North America condemned his teachings? If yes, would that answer your question?
This is key. Read the statements by the major NAPARC denominations on the Federal Vision.
Full disclosure: I defended the legitimacy of Doug Wilson's views on the covenant for many years, arguing that today's Federal Vision, while I have never agreed with it, is a modern version of Klaas Schilder's views on the covenant and is within the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity, though contrary to the Westminster Standards. In other words, I argued that the Federal Vision is wrong -- my own position on soteriology, after all, is that of classic Anglo-American Puritanism and I am therefore fundamentally opposed to the FV view of children and the covenant -- but that it is within the spectrum of legitimate disagreement in Reformed theology.
The position papers of the NAPARC denominations changed my view on that. Especially the internal fight in the URC over what to do about certain ministers and seminaries who advocated that view, or something close to it.
I like Doug Wilson. I think he's done a lot of good, though some of the people who have attached themselves to him have done him no favors. I also think he's taken a lot of unfair hits for things he doesn't believe -- it's normal in politics to demonize our opponents and that's been done to Wilson in the secular media and to some extent in the church world.
What I can't do is continue to defend the legitimacy of a theological position, i.e., the Federal Vision, with which I have never agreed, when most of the major NAPARC denominations have declared it to be outside the bounds of the Reformed confessions, not only the Westminster Standards (that's pretty obvious) but also outside the bounds of the Three Forms of Unity. I always did say the Federal Vision was wrong. The NAPARC denominations have gone beyond that and said it violates the confessions. While we don't believe in synodical infallibility, this is no longer just a few denominations but pretty much every major conservative Reformed denomination out there that has rejected the Federal Vision, and that needs to carry weight for Reformed people.
There is Christian nationalism in theory, and then there are the actual voices promoting it. CN is tied with Hitlerites like Stone Choir and buffoons like Joel Webbon.
Spot on.
If we are going to debate Two Kingdoms theology, we need to know what version of 2K. If we are going to debate "Christian Nationalism," we need to know what version of it.
The words are not being used the same way, and that has led to many problems.
People who want to define "Christian Nationalism" as an ethnostate, and to argue that Christ saves people via ethnic nationalism -- go take that version of Reformed theology to Afrikanerdom in South Africa from a half-century ago and try to make it work. It has a history in Reformed circles, both politically and theologically, with confessionally Reformed people making serious biblical and theological arguments for "separate development of peoples."
I can show articles written long before the modern "Christian Nationalist" controversies by leading men in the Reformed world, not just in South Africa but also in the United States, including men who were (or who later became) leaders in NAPARC denominations, advocating that sort of thing. I have personally interacted with some of those men decades ago who had to find a way to be polite to me and my wife in our interracial marriage.
They were wrong. I thought their bad theology had died with them. I was wrong, it's coming back, and instead of the older generation who actually made legitimate (though wrong) theological arguments of why we need to have separate development of peoples as a means to more effective evangelism, the new people promoting this stuff are flat-out bigots who couldn't care less about non-white minorities. They don't want separate development of peoples to help them develop; what they're really advocating is not "Christian Nationalism" but "White Nationalism" and they ought to be honest in their choice of words.
I trust the anger is obvious despite the fact that I am "holding my fire" here.
Now if we want to argue that Christ is a king and has crown rights over all civil governments, let's talk. But don't use ethnic nationalism arguments with me and claim to advocate Christian nationalism, when what you're actually doing is advocating "Christian" racism, with a thin veneer of support for "Western Christian culture" disguising your dislike for people with a different ethnic background. That's not Christian at all.
Doug Wilson’s theology and ministry have raised concerns within Reformed circles. I’m looking to understand these concerns clearly and biblically.
How do his views on Federal Vision, covenant theology, or justification compare with classic Reformed confessions?
Are there patterns in his ministry or pastoral practice that conflict with Reformed principles?
For those who see his teaching as dangerous or “false,” what doctrinal errors or emphases lead to that judgment?
How did Reformers and Puritans distinguish minor deviations from teaching that truly undermines the gospel, and how can we apply that today?
I’m seeking thoughtful perspectives, not controversy.
