On Doug Wilson I

The Advent of Secularism and the Spectre of Controversy

I suspect there are many Christians out there “quietly” encouraged by Doug Wilson but are made to feel they ought not say so out-loud. This is a problem, because much of what Doug Wilson has to say to the Church in our time ought to be said by many, not few.

For a variety of reasons, many still seem unsure they wish to be associated with someone like Doug Wilson. ‘Tis the season to be concerned about pastors who believe inconvenient things from the Bible, after all. Many people (especially in the UK) might be less sure why controversies like this even matter, who Doug Wilson even is, or what on earth is meant by this fabled “Moscow mood”.

The Strange Fear of Cultural Transformation

For those unaware, Doug Wilson is a Presbyterian pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho (that’s US, not former USSR!). He has written lots of books and articles, given lots of talks, and built lots of institutions, particularly in/around education. One aspect of Christ Church’s evangelical vision is to see the kind of cultural influence which extends beyond individuals to families, churches, extending even to entire towns, and society as a whole.

On the surface this might not seem all that different to what most evangelical churches want to do, or at least claim to want to do. But in the case of Christ Church, Moscow, the difference may be in that they are actually trying to do that. And not only that but they appear to be on the road to some kind of success. Indeed, they made national news in the US not too long ago when a segment by NBC spotlighted this vision to “make Moscow a Christian town”.

Evidently, many secularists (and a good deal of Christians who do not yet realise just how “secularised” they’ve become) appear very worried about the idea of Christians actually taking the tenets of their faith seriously again. Contra the secular pressure exerted upon western Christians in recent decades to keep our faith “private”, Wilson et al appear to believe that perhaps Christian virtue isn’t such a bad thing after all, and that perhaps it ought to affect the socio-political sphere like it used to.

For those who find this a totally foreign concept, even if there have always been those whose desire for Christian influence has seemed more about the “influence” than the “Christian”, it must still be remembered that most Christians in Church history have generally thought Christian socio-political influence was not only a good idea, but an essential implication of mission. Indeed, some might even argue that it’s an inevitable implication of the kingdom of God.

Deliberately aiming for greater Christian influence in the public square is to seek, in one way or another, a renewal of what has been called “Christendom”. That is, that thing which evangelicals appear to have spent the last half-century repenting of, celebrating its demise, and allying with its apparent conqueror, Secularism. The fact that too few Christians see secular culture as a “problem” bearing inevitably negative consequences for Christians explains a lot about the mess we’re currently in.

It is not just the wider cultural vision that causes controversy for Wilson, of course. There are also a plethora of other things he believes and practices which many Christians don’t seem to understand, or with which they see significant problems. However, even such wider “problems” are not necessarily unrelated to the aforementioned advent of secularism in western culture.

The Infiltration of Secularism

When a culture moves further away from Christian norms and replaces them with its own alternative norms, we should not be surprised 1.) when some of these new secular norms eventually infiltrate the Church too, and 2.) when those who obstinately resist such infiltration appear ever more strange to the infiltrated - especially to those who do not know the extent to which they’ve been infiltrated, if they’re even aware of it at all.

Just think what a century or so of cultural Darwinism, feminism, postmodernism, consumerism, socialism, transgenderism, etc. might do to good evangelical churches keen on “cultural engagement”. Think of all that’s been washed in with the tides without being realised. Think of all we no longer believe which our grandparents always believed, or what we now think without thinking which they could never have thought.

And so, many churches have subtly imbibed numerous values about what is or isn’t “good”, or what is or isn’t “allowed” - not necessarily based upon a fresh reading of the Word of God, but based upon these nouveau secular norms in which they now find themselves swimming, whether they intended to be swimming in them or not.

Enculturation is inevitable, of course, and nor is it inevitably bad at all times. But it becomes an acute problem when those imbibed cultural norms begin to colour the way we see those parts of the Bible that no longer make sense to us as a result. This is why, when we come across other Christians who seem to really believe those very parts of the Bible that no longer make sense to us, the easiest way to make sense of such people is to put them in a very different category to us: to abnormalise them.

A Very British Approach to Controversy

In the UK, many people just don’t seem to get what’s going on with Wilson et al. We seem to be so far behind the curve and so fearful of looking controversial or in any way “on the Right” that we’re quick to apply various not-necessarily-biblical strictures to someone like Wilson, and to truncate existing Biblical strictures (e.g. on speech) in order to keep what may challenge us at a safe distance.

This is why, despite the quintessential British fear of speaking out of turn, many Christians in Britain seem to reserve their most polemical takes for those “on the Right”. After all, how else are we supposed to show the world we’re not like them if we don’t reinforce the gulf between us?

I recently had a brief exchange with the editorial director of IVP in the UK, Thomas Creedy, after he posted this somewhat unambiguous take on Wilson:

“Doug Wilson is a danger to the church. Whatever good might be contained in scattered passages of his books, is negated by his defence of abuse, idiotic relations to brothers and sisters he disagrees with, and a complete lack of humility. Sorry for not being clearer.”

Well, at least he didn’t hold back the traditional British apology at the end! For the director of what is still the UK’s most prominent “evangelical” publisher to call one of the most prominent evangelical voices of the day an abuse-defender, an idiot, uncharitable, and completely lacking in humility, could strike one as representing much of what it attempts to critique.

My response to this was simply to point out that he seemed unaware of the many responses which could and have been made by Wilson and others about the kinds of accusations that tend to make the rounds about him and their circles. See, for example, this video interview series with Darren Doane (“Doug Wilson on Trial”), which is especially insightful just to hear his perspective as a pastor attempting to do justice to Scriptural Gospel truth amidst complex circumstances among the flock.

Wilson even has a “controversy library” on his blog website, where he offers responses to various accusations and misunderstandings that have built up over the years relating to his public witness, doctrinal beliefs, and pastoral ministry. Now, some will look at that and say: “Aha! You see! If he were a good’un, he wouldn’t have caused so much trouble and so many misunderstandings over the years!” But one might also look at that and say: “Here’s someone who’s been in the battlefield over the years, and he has some scars to prove it.”

Regardless of whether one thinks a pastor ought to have need of such copious explanations for what they do, from what I’ve seen, a good deal of Wilson’s detractors appear to act as though such responses to said accusations literally don’t exist. In our present culture of authoritarian victimhood, it often seems that demonisation of the accused is the norm. If enough people have decided they’re a bad’un, then they’re a bad’un; and any attempts to clear themselves will only be seen as precisely what a bad’un would do to “control the narrative”. Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Even on a very basic point in response to Creedy’s post, for example, it is manifestly untrue that Wilson doesn’t seek unity or fellowship with brothers and sisters who disagree with him. This stood out especially because, as I observe it, it seems rather that the reverse is true. Whilst Wilson and co regularly offer invites to have their detractors come to Moscow to see what they’re about and ask any questions they like (and as publically as they like), such invitations are rarely accepted and almost never extended back.

Inconvenient Biblical Application

Whenever anyone tentatively does defend Wilson (or even quote him) they usually feel the need (sometimes understandably) to caveat their qualified appreciation to high heaven before doing so, knowing they are in for a bellyful of attack themselves from the noble souls at such joyful groups as “Examining Doug Wilson & Moscow, Idaho”, who will mark them down as defenders-of-defenders-of-defenders-of-abuse. And who really wants to have to bother with that? You may as well just quote someone else and save yourself the trouble.

Some British evangelical leaders have occasionally admitted to me that they still read/follow Wilson “as something of a guilty pleasure”. That is, they know he might be onto something, but they’re not quite sure they’d go the whole way with whatever he’s onto, and they’re certainly not willing to admit he’s onto anything publically. To his credit, John Piper, one of the rare evangelical leaders who platformed Wilson a few times over the years, did do so publically, offering a challenge whilst also expressing constructively where he disagreed. And he did so, like Paul to Peter, to his face; that is, like a Christian (or indeed, like a man).

It makes sense that if you’ve been encouraged by someone’s ministry, you should think about passing that on to others that they too might be encouraged. It might not always be worth the aggravation if such encouragement comes with so much baggage attached that the encouragement is lost at baggage reclaim, but isn’t that already the case whenever you take a stand on the Bible in these times? Don’t the prophets and apostles come with even greater baggage? Should we stop quoting them too? Let alone our troublesome Messiah on a less winsome day? After all, it is Wilson’s stance on the Bible which ultimately causes all the trouble.

One way to show the triumph of Christ over the new Secular gods is to show them that when it comes to the belief and application of Biblical truth, we don’t care they won’t like it because they were never supposed to.

Accusations and Accusers

Charitably, I expect what many are trying to figure out is whether Wilson is the kind of “quarreller” Paul has in mind when he refers to false teachers who have “an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction” (1Tim. 6:4-5).

It’s a good and wise thing to hold leaders to account. There are indeed people who appear to “court controversy” in unhelpful ways. It’s also true that Wilson certainly is trying to be controversial in some of what he does, not only against the world but also against the evangelical establishment. You just can’t imagine Tim Keller or John Piper partaking in a promotional video for their writing by sitting on a couch that’s on fire, or using a flamethrower to dispense with cultural idols. We have no framework within modern evangelical leadership for that kind of thing ever really being “a thing”.

And yet, being controversial is also what most people who follow God in this world have always done, and accusations by religious elites have usually followed them whatever they’ve said and wherever they’ve gone. And so, when our (naturally more conflict-avoidant) evangelical leaders incite the “be nice” passages against those who appear to be causing the right kind of trouble, one has a right to be suspicious of the accusers as well as the accused.

In considering aforementioned texts like 1Tim. 6:4-5, we at least need to consider the possibility that sometimes it is the perpetually interested accusers who appear to have the “unhealthy craving for controversy”. Not because they are daring to say or do things which go against (“contra”) the norms (“verse”) themselves, but because they may tend to pore over and publicise details about a person’s ministry, not in order to weigh a case justly (cf. Prov. 16:11-12) or to potentially exonerate them, but rather in order to trip them up and show them in the worst possible light.

In the pastoral epistles, Paul is generally warning against outright false teachers - those who teach something that is not Christianity, not those who are endeavouring to point out and live out what Christianity really entails when we really believe what it says. If you were able to read a blog by the Corinthian church, you would be likely to find all sorts of accusations against Paul. Although there are many voices out there peddling “Christianity” for their own ends, and many leaders who have done good things whilst also deceiving many, I believe it is genuinely ludicrous - indeed, controversial - to count someone like Doug Wilson as such a voice.

As I’ll explore in the second part to this post, whilst Wilson certainly might be critiqued here or there (as with any of us), it is precisely what makes the ecclesial establishment so nervous about him that might well point to the truth of those things which have not been pointed out by the Church for far too long.