Not Click Bait: I Like Doug Wilson

[AnotherDaniel]

The puritan board never ceases to disappoint on this topic.

Anyways, this is a good take on DW:

DeYoung, the Restless, and the Reformed

When the church refuses to be the pillar and buttress of the truth, it exchanges the prophetic witness of the church for a pathetic one.

heritageopc.org

 

[Ploutos]

The puritan board never ceases to disappoint on this topic.

Anyways, this is a good take on DW:

DeYoung, the Restless, and the Reformed

When the church refuses to be the pillar and buttress of the truth, it exchanges the prophetic witness of the church for a pathetic one.

heritageopc.org

**After posting this earlier, I felt that it was too sharp-tongued by a lot, so I have edited it. My apologies to anyone who read the post in its original version. I don't think it was becoming or prudent of me to speak in such a manner. If it still seems a bit too sharp, just imagine what a jerk I sounded like before clicking the edit button.**

Could you clarify why you are disappointed with PB's latest take on this topic? I can think of lots of reasons people might be disappointed with this board, but it's always nice to know which reasons are associated with which people and which threads.

I found that article problematic. The author made some good points, but it seems to me that he downplayed the seriousness of Doug Wilson's questionable theological leanings. On this board, with its particular concern for theological precision regarding core Reformed distinctives, those theological diversions are a big deal, and I do think that people who downplay them should provide some explanation why they don't think it's important to get the idea of justification by faith really accurately.

Also, it seems to me that he dismisses out of hand the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, implying that he buys into a more socially oriented kingdom-now conception of the gospel. This wouldn't be surprising coming from a CREC minister, and maybe I don't know the OPC that well, being a PCA guy by default circumstance, but I would think that as an OPC minister he would be amenable to the OPC's general flavor on that issue.

Overall, it's concerning that he spent more time talking about Wilson's bad language then Wilson's bad theology. But then he was paying a particular mind to Kevin DeYoung's article, and in my mind it's a fair criticism of KDY's article that it also focused on the superficialities more than on the doctrinal problems. But that said, as with the theological issues, he mentioned some of these presentation issues and then largely excused them by turning around and pointing the finger back at his brothers in the OPC. Maybe his criticisms of the OPC are justified, but that seems somewhat irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the wrongs of the OPC justify the wrongs of Doug Wilson.

 

[mpinckard]

But then he was paying a particular mind to Kevin DeYoung's article, and in my mind it's a fair criticism of KDY's article that it also focused on the superficialities more than on the doctrinal problems.

In KDY's defense, he focused on the "Moscow Mood," not because he thought it more significant than the doctrinal issues, but because he was trying to write a targeted article, focusing on what attracts people to Moscow. Ultimately, yes, the doctrinal issues are more important, but I think it's worthwhile to observe that there are other problems that are more directly related to what makes Wilson popular, and that people can fall into even without embracing his doctrinal errors.

 

[Ploutos]

In KDY's defense, he focused on the "Moscow Mood," not because he thought it more significant than the doctrinal issues, but because he was trying to write a targeted article, focusing on what attracts people to Moscow. Ultimately, yes, the doctrinal issues are more important, but I think it's worthwhile to observe that there are other problems that are more directly related to what makes Wilson popular, and that people can fall into even without embracing his doctrinal errors.

That's a fair point.

 

[AnotherDaniel]

**After posting this earlier, I felt that it was too sharp-tongued by a lot, so I have edited it. My apologies to anyone who read the post in its original version. I don't think it was becoming or prudent of me to speak in such a manner. If it still seems a bit too sharp, just imagine what a jerk I sounded like before clicking the edit button.**

Could you clarify why you are disappointed with PB's latest take on this topic? I can think of lots of reasons people might be disappointed with this board, but it's always nice to know which reasons are associated with which people and which threads.

I found that article problematic. The author made some good points, but it seems to me that he downplayed the seriousness of Doug Wilson's questionable theological leanings. On this board, with its particular concern for theological precision regarding core Reformed distinctives, those theological diversions are a big deal, and I do think that people who downplay them should provide some explanation why they don't think it's important to get the idea of justification by faith really accurately.

Also, it seems to me that he dismisses out of hand the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, implying that he buys into a more socially oriented kingdom-now conception of the gospel. This wouldn't be surprising coming from a CREC minister, and maybe I don't know the OPC that well, being a PCA guy by default circumstance, but I would think that as an OPC minister he would be amenable to the OPC's general flavor on that issue.

Overall, it's concerning that he spent more time talking about Wilson's bad language then Wilson's bad theology. But then he was paying a particular mind to Kevin DeYoung's article, and in my mind it's a fair criticism of KDY's article that it also focused on the superficialities more than on the doctrinal problems. But that said, as with the theological issues, he mentioned some of these presentation issues and then largely excused them by turning around and pointing the finger back at his brothers in the OPC. Maybe his criticisms of the OPC are justified, but that seems somewhat irrelevant to the question at hand of whether the wrongs of the OPC justify the wrongs of Doug Wilson.

The thread started with accusations of DW being at odds with reformers on crucial doctrine, which was then repeated throughout the thread. But this issue has been laid to rest many times and is a few clicks away for those that care to look. The latest evidence is his new book "Keep Your Kids" where he is very clear that the ground of our Justification is Christ's imputed righteousness.

Then it moved on to accusations about pastoral malpractise (based on the word of unbelivers), his followers being insane and a hyper focus on some course language that he has used (a few words out of a million+).

There is no need for us adopt or approve of everything DW says or does. But he clearly gets a treatment here that would not be allowed of anyone else. That is why I linked the article, it provides a balanced take on DW that is largely lacking on this board.

 

[DanSSwing]

The puritan board never ceases to disappoint on this topic.

Anyways, this is a good take on DW:

DeYoung, the Restless, and the Reformed

When the church refuses to be the pillar and buttress of the truth, it exchanges the prophetic witness of the church for a pathetic one.

heritageopc.org

“If you are a mature, grounded Christian in a good church, with a good sense of discernment, you can find a number of helpful things from the world of Moscow. But there’s a difference between snacking on Moscow once you are already full of good Christian discipleship and feasting on Moscow for three square meals a day.” -DeYoung

Yes.

 

[RamistThomist]

Then it moved on to accusations about pastoral malpractise (based on the word of unbelivers),

We can link to court documents. It's not just the word of unbelievers. Even Wilson admits he encouraged a woman to marry a p3dophile.

The latest evidence is his new book "Keep Your Kids" where he is very clear that the ground of our Justification is Christ's imputed righteousness.

That's great. It doesn't really square with his remarks elsewhere that we are justified on the basis of infused righteousness. Am I justified because of the goodness of my faith?

 

[RamistThomist]

And while I am one of his harshest critics, I'll give him this: compare him to Webbon and the Trashworld guys and he comes off like a mild-mannered, well-spoken moderate.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. This is unfair and it is untrue. You can find unhinged Wilson haters in Facebook discussions and there are sites devoted to that. Not here. Speaking for the admins and moderators, all here have the same ninth commandment obligations toward Doug Wilson as to anyone, even the Pope. I think I've said as much on this board. What is true, is this board is not one that fawn's over him, or, from what may be seen as admirable on this or that front, brushes aside the serious doctrinal and practical issues. It's a Reformed board and members take the Reformed faith seriously, and on this area in particular we take the Reformed consensus of the NAPARC churches seriously. That by way of defense of this board and the way it is moderated.

Now, this thread threatened to die out more than once before. Let's let it do so and hopefully we have a nice long break till some new or newer member starts the next Wilson thread.

But he clearly gets a treatment here that would not be allowed of anyone else.

 

[DanSSwing]

And while I am one of his harshest critics, I'll give him this: compare him to Webbon and the Trashworld guys and he comes off like a mild-mannered, well-spoken moderate.

I’m really sad to see Joel Webbon’s direction. Posturing to attract a culture can never take a backseat to truth.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The thread started with accusations of DW being at odds with reformers on crucial doctrine, which was then repeated throughout the thread. But this issue has been laid to rest many times and is a few clicks away for those that care to look.

What is a "few clicks away" are Study reports and statements from every NAPARC denomination for those with the theological knowledge and maturity to understand.

Wilson has very recently stated that he and a few others stand on the side of the WCF and every NAPARC denomination that has critiqued FV don't know what they're talking about.

You're in the wrong denomination if you think that it's apparently obvious to the casual observer that Wilson has his soteriology and sacramentology buttoned up.

I say this with all seriousness, but your post only makes you seem theologically naive if you think the issue is such a "slam dunk" case that the only problem with DW is his tone.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

You're in the wrong denomination if you think that it's apparently obvious to the casual observer that Wilson has his soteriology and sacramentology buttoned up.

Quite right.

Wilson has been so wrong about some Reformed fundamentals (the exclusive federal headship of Adam and Christ; covenantal objectivism; faithfulness instead of faith, etc.) that any real change of position on his part should not properly be done in the dead of night and casually show up in some book as if he's been right all along and "here's the evidence."

He's been so wrong about some Reformed basics that if he were to come to the biblical and confessional position, he would need to do so explicitly and in repudiation of his wrong views on things.

I can also assure all here that KDY fully understands Wilson's significant theological errors. His "Moscow Mood" piece was, as many here understand, an attempt to dissect DW's appeal, especially to young men. I think that Kevin is spot-on about DW. He's generous where he needs to be and properly critical.

The PB is not unfair to Wilson. He's been unfair to the Reformed and Presbyterian Church in the project he's undertaken. DW is not wrong that there are problems in our R and P churches. Of course there are. However, his proposed solutions were not solutions at all, but took us away from the R and P confessions and catechisms.

Where Wilson was and is right, our tradition was and is already right there. Where Wilson proposed things like faithfulness as justifying, he departed from the truth and should not be followed; indeed, he should repudiate his errors and embrace the truth.

Jacob is right that compared to some these days, like Webbon, Wilson appears moderate. The church, though, does not need what Wilson, Wolfe, and others are offering. Wherever such men are right, many in our R and P churches seem unable to discern where they are wrong and can better learn what they need to learn from the teachers in their own NAPARC churches.

Peace,
Alan

 

[MarrowMan]

The puritan board never ceases to disappoint on this topic.

Anyways, this is a good take on DW:

DeYoung, the Restless, and the Reformed

When the church refuses to be the pillar and buttress of the truth, it exchanges the prophetic witness of the church for a pathetic one.

heritageopc.org

Don't worry. It's no more disappointing than the tendency of DW fans to feel the need to opine without actually engaging in the specifics of the argument, or to dismiss issues with mere hand waving.

 

[RamistThomist]

As I've said before, I've almost forgotten about him. He's a heretic, to be sure, and a wolf as a pastor; but I don't think he is the foremost danger. That would be his Hitlerite followers. When the Ogden guys think he is "too soft on Jews and women" (see their nonsense on the Longhouse), I knew that I need not worry as much about Wilson.

And then you have Webbon, who is a textbook grifter. Watch his sermon clips where he whines about people stealing his ministry.

 

[Sam Jer]

who is a textbook grifter

Is this the definition you are using?

Grifter
Noun
Mainly US informal
Someone who gets money dishonestly by tricking people:
She fell for a charming, fast-talking grifter.

What makes him a grifter? I have not been following since early 2023.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is this the definition you are using?

Yes.

What makes him a grifter? I have not been following since early 2023.

He jumps on any new idea for the sake of building his brand. He then says this new position has been "what all Christians believed until 15 minutes ago." Meaning, he himself just learned this 15 minutes ago. We've often joked around about inventing some weird new position and telling him it was what everybody believed until 15 minutes ago, seeing whether or not he would jump on it.

And there are more insidious moments. Like when he was an Acts 29 pastor and had sex with a congregant. When asked if that disqualified him for ministry, he said he wasn't really ordained back then. He also boasted about having an army of anons to attack people on X.

 

[LeviRPCGA]

The puritan board never ceases to disappoint on this topic.

Anyways, this is a good take on DW:

DeYoung, the Restless, and the Reformed

When the church refuses to be the pillar and buttress of the truth, it exchanges the prophetic witness of the church for a pathetic one.

heritageopc.org

For all his faults, John Robbins is better as I see it:

The Trinity Foundation - Why Heretics Win Battles

The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons Debating the Federal Vision E. Calvin Beisner, editor Fort Lauderdale, Florida: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004 The Apostle Paul lost some of his

www.trinityfoundation.org

His book, “Not Reformed at All,” is helpful with FV. Not exactly as complete in argumentation as I would like it to be, and not overly charitable to the confusion FV has caused in RP denominations, but still a far cry clearer where the minority reports are not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I will say this about the PB, with all its faults, I haven't found a place that consistently and substantively gets into the theological specifics and nuances from a number of voices.

Even the groups I participate in (limited to PCA elders) typically glide over the surface, with many focused on style over substance.

PB has been a sharpening tool for me for many years. That we have a mixture of Presbyterian, Reformed, and Baptist voices here provides many angles, and the format pushes to substance and precision.

You just can't get away with things here that one can get away with in many typical interactions.

Sure, it has the surface-level swipes, but even things that we notably don't allow formal identification with (e.g., FV advocates) receive fair interrogation because those positions often seem strengthened by the weak articulation from their critics.

It would be a research project at this point practically worthy of a dissertation to see how the debate unfolded from 2005-2008 around the FV. The voices were broad, but the most profound voices were those who pushed back against the extreme or semi-Reformed teaching of FV. For example, there is always a "Salvation=Justification only=indicative modd" movement within the Reformed camp. Those voices have prominent followings but their critiques against FV were impaired by their own idiosyncrasies. The PB is so rooted in many corners, clinging to Reformed Confessions, that it exposes idiosyncracy while providing the most robust critique against FV sympathies.

Same thing with the Acts 29 movement. I can't tell you the number of current Pastors who were swept up in that "missional" movement, who were attracted to its leading lights. Many in the PB were consistently against those movements and saw through the "flash in the pan" success. When the CT Mars Hill podcast came out, many of those Elders were like: "Gosh, what can we learn from this fall?" I remember thinking: "Maybe you should learn more about the Confession you subscribe to so that you're not caught up with new methods and can't see through their obvious errors that are planting the seed for their own destruction.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

When asked if that disqualified him for ministry, he said he wasn't really ordained back then.

In other words, he was about as ordained then as he is now.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

I’m really sad to see Joel Webbon’s direction. Posturing to attract a culture can never take a backseat to truth.

I've heard of that guy somewhere. Is he really worse than DW?

 

[particularlybaptist]

I've heard of that guy somewhere. Is he really worse than DW?

He is similar to DW, but angrier. Presents a real aggressive sort of Christianity.

I don’t remember where I heard him say it, but he once said “I don’t think Jesus is particularly helpful here.” I can’t imagine a context where that makes sense to say

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

He is similar to DW, but angrier. Presents a real aggressive sort of Christianity.

I don’t remember where I heard him say it, but he once said “I don’t think Jesus is particularly helpful here.” I can’t imagine a context where that makes sense to say

Welp. That's everything I need to know from him.

 

[FivePointSpurgeonist]

I had watched some videos of Joel Webbon not knowing much about him, but something didn’t sit right with me. An “aggressive sort of Christianity” sounds about right.

 

[DanSSwing]

I've heard of that guy somewhere. Is he really worse than DW?

Webbon seemed solid a few years ago. But recently he's been concerned by the rise of the far-right within the church who think that any opposition to the Left must be good. He wants to keep them in the church and correct them there rather than risk them leaving. So he's been trying to walk a fine line in adopting some of their terminology and behavior so that the church feels like a "safe space" for them--exactly the same error churches made with the far-left! I don't know that his theology per se has been affected, but it's definitely led him into some sinful behavior like mocking godly men for not being sufficiently "based" or something.

 

[RamistThomist]

He started out as your typical Kuyperian worldview-everything guy. Fairly basic. He then went south fast.