Not another DW thread

Getting beyond the question of "mood," anyone interested in Doug Wilson's actually theology is encouraged to watch this interview:
in which he directly addresses five questions (posed by R. Scott Clark) re: FV.
 
LittleFaith said:
On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood

Kevin DeYoung has recently published what I found to be a very helpful "overview" of the Doug Wilson phenomenon. His approach is a little bit different - rather than taking up the theological quibbles that all soundly Reformed Christians should have, or addressing some of the scandals, he sets out to discern the reason for Doug Wilson's appeal, with the thesis that DW's draw is not primarily theological and is instead emotive - that people are instinctively drawn to a brand/image/attitude that taps into something they resonate with.

Because of his decision not to focus on theology or particular incidents, he is able to address some of the less clear-cut issues: the incendiary rhetoric, the coarse behavior, and (what I found most insightful) the extent to which this phenomenon is in the end centered not so much on a belief system but on the personal brand of Doug Wilson himself. That he does so with reasoned Biblical support is much appreciated by at least this one reader; in addition, rather than simply criticizing DW, he provides an alternate vision / course of action in the areas of critique.

As is usual in his writing, he is very gracious and irenic in his tone. He spends considerable time noting DW's positives, pointing out areas of commonality, and highlighting the potential for greater good influence. Here and elsewhere, this generates a vague sense of annoyance that the good is not more unreservedly affirmed and the bad not more pointedly critiqued. This is as likely to reflect my own immaturity and sharpness as it is to reflect an actual shortcoming on KDY's part.

For those (like my wife) who have not had prior exposure to DW, I found this to be a very helpful overview. This is an article that can be given to the less theologically egg-headed among us to explain why one should exercise care with this man and his writings - to people for whom the nuances of the Federal Vision controversy might not mean much, for instance.

I would welcome thoughts from those who have the time to read this for themselves.
Click to expand...
The Empire Strikes Back: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/novembers-done-kevin-deyoung.html
 
This is a good article: https://thelondonlyceum.com/on-justification-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-doctrine/

As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.

Master of rhetoric that he is, Wilson would have us think we are tilting at windmills, stating:

Keep your eye on the ball. I believe that this FV issue continues to be an issue because of the doctrinal downgrade entailed in wokeness that is currently swamping Reformed evangelicalism in general. It is a distraction. I am one of the few voices raised in effective opposition to all of that woke foolishness, and so these canards are being resurrected again in order to dampen any thoughts that any of you might have about the propriety of following me into battle.
You know, the actual battle.
Click to expand...
But the theological issues can’t be so flippantly dismissed because of a commitment to “own the libs.” More is at stake than that. And regardless of how effective his opposition to wokeness is, Wilson isn’t the hero we need to follow into battle. A significant error on the doctrine of justification isn’t merely a distraction.

Whereas some might (mistakenly, in our view) dismiss DeYoung’s critique as BigEva pearl-clutching because of Moscow’s “serrated edge,” our concern is anything but that. It’s not a disagreement about tone, emphasis, or “knowing what time it is.” It’s a fundamental disagreement about the heart of the gospel, about the doctrine Luther called “the article by which the church stands or falls.” For whatever “visceral” appeal “the Moscow mood” might present, we implore you to flee from the very real spiritual danger embedded in “the Moscow doctrine.”
Click to expand...
 
From his CREC exam:

When speaking of regeneration you used the phrase "infused righteousness." This is not customary "regeneration" phraseology, though in the light of John Murray's "definitive sanctification" it seems legitimate. What do you mean by the expression "infused righteousness" and how that relates to justification. Does God justify because in regeneration a new heart has been given to us and we have been changed? Does the "infused righteousness" have anything to do with the judicial declaration of righteousness that constitutes justification?

My use of infused righteousness as descriptive of regeneration was a deliberate tweaking of some who ignore the implications of the traditional categories.

Regeneration is certainly not imputed righteousness, and it certainly is an internal change of the sinner's heart. So "infused" seem accurate enough, and it does line up with Murray's definitive sanctification. But this highlights a problem with the way many among the Reformed have understood all this. Our faith is imperfect, even though it is genuine and God-given. This means that God can use the imperfect instrument of faith to enable us to receive the perfect gift of Christ's righteousness.

The new heart is not the ground of justification any more than faith was, which we have to understand as the instrument of justification. Instead of saying "faith is the instrument (not ground) of justification," we may now say "the regenerate heart believing is the instrument (not ground) of justification." But the reason it tweaks us at all is that we are accustomed to give pride of place to imputed righteousness, all the while not recognizing that in the traditional Reformed ordo salutis, the pride of place actually goes to a type of infused righteousness (regeneration). There is nothing new here. I am saying nothing that cannot be derived (by good and necessary consequence) from the traditional ordo.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DeYoung's article was milquetoast and impotent. If you're going to go at DW, you have to be precise. Anything short of biting theological precision will be disregarded as effeminate TGC drivel. In this case, rightfully so. Joe Rigney and Toby Sumpter have made DeYoung look like a Karen -- DW a hero.
 
HauerVos said:
DeYoung's article was milquetoast and impotent. If you're going to go at DW, you have to be precise. Anything short of biting theological precision will be disregarded as effeminate TGC drivel. In this case, rightfully so. Joe Rigney and Toby Sumpter have made DeYoung look like a Karen -- DW a hero.
Click to expand...

I grant that KDY wrote an anemic article, but Toby Sumpter is not having a good go of it on twitter. Several former Moscow church members have receipts and know where the skeletons are.

I also dispute that precision fazes DW that much. He has been so thoroughly worked over regarding blackmailing a rape victim, marrying off a known pedophile, messing up the gospel, and the like--and none of that bothers him.
 
RamistThomist said:
I grant that KDY wrote an anemic article, but Toby Sumpter is not having a good go of it on twitter. Several former Moscow church members have receipts and know where the skeletons are.

I also dispute that precision fazes DW that much. He has been so thoroughly worked over regarding blackmailing a rape victim, marrying off a known pedophile, messing up the gospel, and the like--and none of that bothers him.
Click to expand...
I know you raised two critiques earlier, but can you elaborate on why you found the article anemic?
 
Toby Sumpter is not having a good go of it on twitter. Several former Moscow church members have receipts and know where the skeletons are.
Click to expand...
Good to hear. I'm not on the X anymore
I also dispute that precision fazes DW that much. He has been so thoroughly worked over regarding blackmailing a rape victim, marrying off a known pedophile, messing up the gospel, and the like--and none of that bothers him.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm thinking it has more of an effect on young Wilsonites who like his political "mood." I've seen some fruit in sending people the URC's report on the FV. Me-Too reactivity has made it almost impossible for Wilson's followers to consider his victims.
 
RamistThomist said:
He avoided substance to focus on tone, though I do agree with what he said
Click to expand...
I confess that I still don't follow. He made a conscious choice not to focus on theological issues - which might be helpful in talking to people who don't have the context or acumen to follow the doctrinal intricacies. And I do think in focusing on tone he addressed one reason people are drawn to DW. What is anemic about that? (Honest question.)
 
There was plenty of substance - he was focusing on ethics rather than doctrine as everyone, including DeYoung, made abundantly clear.

Calling the article “effeminate” is a lame critique and offers no help whatsoever.
 
In DeYoung's defence, I was first sent the article by a DW fan who had listened to little of my warnings about his theology beforehand. He seemed quite disturbed by some of the things DW had said, so it has clearly been effective in making some of his fans question things a bit more.

I will also say though that I want to see DeYoung respond to the allegations of hypocrisy given that he hasn't said anything it seems about TGC promoting films with graphic sex and nudity while then complaining about Wilson's salty language.
 
MattTheReformedRuminator said:
"We’ve got to understand why this kind of bait is so attractive and effective. There's a huge need for strong and solid Christian discipleship for these young men, but instead, they're finding people like DW who lead them off track."

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think the problem can be ignored.
Click to expand...
Does anyone else see significant parallels to the Mars Hill/Driscoll situation? I share many of DeYoung's concerns here and am alarmed at the cult-like attraction some young men in my church have to Wilson and his movement despite the many red-flags both theological and moral.
 
Jeremy Head said:
Does anyone else see significant parallels to the Mars Hill/Driscoll situation? I share many of DeYoung's concerns here and am alarmed at the cult-like attraction some young men in my church have to Wilson and his movement despite the many red-flags both theological and moral.
Click to expand...
Driscoll was more visceral and direct. He didn’t consider himself a “wordsmith.” Mars Hill crashed and burned but it was a different set up.
 
ZackF said:
Driscoll was more visceral and direct. He didn’t consider himself a “wordsmith.” Mars Hill crashed and burned but it was a different set up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. One of the reasons Mars Hill crashed is because people actually understood what Driscoll is saying. DW, when pressed on an issue, will just say, "Yowzas, jeepers, ofcourse I believe that," or it is a woman, he will call them [WORD REDACTED].

He isn't funny, and he isn't a good communicator.
 
ZackF said:
Driscoll was more visceral and direct. He didn’t consider himself a “wordsmith.” Mars Hill crashed and burned but it was a different set up.
Click to expand...

RamistThomist said:
Agreed. One of the reasons Mars Hill crashed is because people actually understood what Driscoll is saying. DW, when pressed on an issue, will just say, "Yowzas, jeepers, ofcourse I believe that," or it is a woman, he will call them [WORD REDACTED].

He isn't funny, and he isn't a good communicator.
Click to expand...
There has been plenty of times I’ve questioned what I read after reading DW. Similar to listening to Jordan Peterson.

Either I’m dumb or he doesn’t know how to get an idea across clearly. And when touching essential doctrines, wordsmith mode is not only unwise but irresponsible as an ‘elder’ taking care of the flock.
 
John The Baptist said:
There has been plenty of times I’ve questioned what I read after reading DW. Similar to listening to Jordan Peterson.

Either I’m dumb or he doesn’t know how to get an idea across clearly. And when touching essential doctrines, wordsmith mode is not only unwise but irresponsible as an ‘elder’ taking care of the flock.
Click to expand...

Guys like Arius loved playing in ambiguities and word-play. Once they state clearly what they believe, it's over. Arius got favor from Constantine not by renouncing his errors, but by using fewer yet equally ambiguous words.

Beza on this matter (roughly translated):

“For in this way these men, their own mysteries, partly darkened completely until now. They have obscured them partly by new expressions & phrases, and by a very abstract method of speaking, one full of ambiguities. They are concerned about refuting our ideas than about setting forth and proving their own ideas, so that even from this very thing they give testimony enough, and more than enough, as to whether the spirit of light or the spirit of darkness has persuaded themselves of these things.” Original here.
 
John The Baptist said:
There has been plenty of times I’ve questioned what I read after reading DW. Similar to listening to Jordan Peterson.

Either I’m dumb or he doesn’t know how to get an idea across clearly. And when touching essential doctrines, wordsmith mode is not only unwise but irresponsible as an ‘elder’ taking care of the flock.
Click to expand...
Peterson is definitely a waffler.

'Do you believe in God, Jordan?'

'Well, what do you mean by 'believe'? And what do you mean by 'God'? And what do you mean by 'mean'?'

*After painstakingly trying to define terms to his satisfaction, the question is asked again.*

'Well, yes, of course I do. And no, I don't.'
 
Ulster Fry said:
Peterson is definitely a waffler.

'Do you believe in God, Jordan?'

'Well, what do you mean by 'believe'? And what do you mean by 'God'? And what do you mean by 'mean'?'

*After painstakingly trying to define terms to his satisfaction, the question is asked again.*

'Well, yes, of course I do. And no, I don't.'
Click to expand...
It's funny how Peterson becomes a post-modernist theologian whenever he's pressed about God.
 
DanSSwing said:
Getting beyond the question of "mood," anyone interested in Doug Wilson's actually theology is encouraged to watch this interview:
in which he directly addresses five questions (posed by R. Scott Clark) re: FV.
Click to expand...
I’ve listened to about the first 40%, and I’ll say if you think this clears things up about his theology, it’s possible you’re not listening close enough. Just take what he says about the CoW. He doesn’t like what it has traditionally been called, doesn’t like how it has been explained for 300 years, and it’s really a gracious covenant anyway. He wants to explain it in such a way to make you think “oh, maybe he means the same thing the reformed have always meant,” but notice how he just won’t say what the reformed have always said. It really would be quite easy to say, “Well, the cofessions say X, the catechisms explain Y, the divines who wrote those documents all explained it Z, and there you have it.” But he doesn’t. That should tell you something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top