I appreciate the message conveyed by sitting on a couch almost totally consumed by fire. ;Thank you for the essay. I was not familiar with Doug Wilson.
Thanks Aaron for articulating this so well and giving a Biblical defence to the approach Pastor Wilson has taken to counter the current cultural mood and the chaos Chritslessness has caused in the west.
My wife and I are tremendously blessed by his ministry, especially their wisdom in raising children and creating a covenant household...May Jesus protect him from error and pride..
Hope many people will appreciate what a means of grace Pastor Wilson is to the current generation of christians.
Thankyou Dawn. And yes, I very much agree. Wilson has been a tremendous blessing to many. I'm sure that's one reason he is so frequently attacked. He has often been willing to take stands on key issues well ahead of the curve, not only from a place of prophetic discernment but of principled faithfulness, because the truth of God's Word matters irrespective of the opinions of the Zeitgeist.
I've just come across this article now and still would like to comment.
I think one has to be particularly dense in a rather worrisome way - or maybe this is a pisstake? - to write a defense like this. Wilson isn't suspect because he speaks truths we don't want to hear. (Trust me, we hear them all day long.) He is under fire for being a truly unpleasant, abusive, nasty piece of work. I don't care how much "truth" you speak about God - the moment you call women c*nts, or "small-breasted biddies" or denigrate your opponents as "gay" AS A PROMINENT PASTOR AND BIBLE TEACHER you should be whipped out of the church until you seriously repent.
There is a slew of well-founded and very troubling accusations against this utter creep (Piper isn't that much different, hence the platform) and defending him as some paragon of cultural import is really quite baffling.
It sounds like you're not especially interested in understanding either Wilson or Piper. You may see them as terrible wolves, but you need to have very good reasons to denounce them as strongly as that. I recommend 1. you read my second post on Wilson, and 2. you read Wilson's defences of his controversies. Then decide whether you want to stand by every word you've just written, or whether you'd like to add some further caveats to your disagreement. Thanks.
I actually just read Wilson's latest blog post, incidentally. It's a series of 'responses' to reader questions. He has a very clear MO, where any serious questions or accusations are batted away either with non-responses or counter accusations of 'I thought you were asking in good faith, but now I find you are not'. He is impossible to nail down, because he is a great rhetorician (albeit one driven by a foul and unrepentant soul) and he's been around the block a few times, so I wasn't really surprised.
I fully stand by every word I've written, but my gist is you.
It is entirely correct that Wilson has referred to women - specific women or women in general - as c&nts, small-breasted biddies, lumberjack dykes (as opposed to the 'prettier' Christian ladies).
It is entirely correct that Wilson has recommended, in one of his books, that a husband trains his wife in her duties, so much so that if she rebels over not washing the dishes, the elders should rock up at the house and talk to her.
It is entirely correct that Wilson set up a single lady with a known and convicted pedophile in his church, with the result that this man then sexually abused their baby boy.
It is entirely correct that Wilson covered up other instances of sexual abuse; that he has a truly harmful view of marriage, an entirely unbiblical view of male authority (along with John Piper) and uses language that is thoroughly crude and vulgar with the excuse that it's a 'serrated edge'.
It is entirely correct that when criticized heavily on a particular point, he warned his critics that if they didn't repent, they would lose their salvation.
Let's come back to you. We can well have doctrinal bones to pick with Bible teachers without dismissing them wholesale. (For example, I love listening to Andrew Wommack but do not condone his teaching on tithing.) That much is true. But there are things that should put a "man of God" firmly and decisively beyond the pale.
And one of these things is - MUST be - verbal and/or physical abuse of women and children, or enablement thereof. Categorically, every time, end of. I am therefore not the slightest bit interested whether he is right on everything else. We simply cannot say, well, Doug is a jolly good Bible teacher, and look how he sticks it to the world, shame about him calling women c&nts, but hey, nobody's perfect!
So if you do this, and I surmise you do, there are two options.
One, you are a person just like him, and best to be avoided, which I do not believe.
Two, you are a man who just cannot fathom the pain that Christian women - Christian CONSERVATIVE women like me - feel when they come across this kind of rancid garbage, because you agree that women should be oppressed, broken, directed, trained, subjugated and disciplined if they don't fall in line. You do not recognize the harm his words and actions truly have because you cannot fathom what it feels like to be at the receiving end, because as a man, you never will be. You and your ilk drone on about the "weaker vessels" but in reality, with the advice Wilson dishes out, this just means we are yours for the breaking.
Even if you lack the imagination for true solidarity, think about the effect his antics have on the wider world. Would any normal woman, any normal couple in fact, want to join this kind of cult? What kind man would want to take his wife to that church so that she can be quiet (Wilson's words)? What kind of woman would want to follow a "faith" that teaches her that her husband is her "Lord" and that his word is "final" (again, Wilson's words)? Isn't it telling that it is mainly churchy people who join his church and move to Mühlhausen, err, I mean Moscow?
What kind of repute does all of this bring to the name of Jesus? (Who only seems to feature very marginally in Wilson's universe.) Do you truly believe that this kind of rubbish encourages, builds up, attracts people and glorifies God?
Yes, he's counter-cultural and we know our culture is rotten. I can see why this is an easy trap for men in particular, who might well have grown up with a sense of entitlement regarding their place in the world, and now feel that female competition requires them to adjust. But the Christian response is not conjuring up a world that either never was or, where it existed, resulted in untold harm to both women and men. The Christian response is to be better.
Wilson says the role of Christian men is to protect their womenfolk but only the good Christian ladies. Be better!
Ok, so again you've written much there which I would hope you will come to reflect differently on in time. Much of your rhetoric is simply uncharitable and unreasonable. As I said, denunciation is appropriate when appropriate. You seem to think Wilson (and those who support him) believe unbiblical things which lead to the harm of women. It's the exact opposite.
You also seem to oppose blatantly biblical views from texts like 1Peter 3, Eph. 5, 1Tim. 2, 1Cor. 11, 1Cor. 14, Col. 3, etc. It's not like it's a "quiet" theme in the New Testament. Whatever your interpretation of those passages, you need to deal with the rhetoric there. It's Peter (not Wilson) who uses the patriarch's wives as an example for Christian wives (noting that they called their husbands "lord"). What do you do with that? How does it fit with your biblical convictions? Why do you believe some parts of the Bible, but not others? It seems you have allowed a grossly uncharitable reading of Wilson's approach to colour your view of the Bible. As I noted in the second post, Wilson's approach is by no means perfect. I disagree with the rationale in some of the use of language you refer to, for example.
Regardless of what you think about Wilson, from much of what you've written above, it sounds like your bigger problem is with the Biblical authors, and thus, the authority of God's Word itself. Ask God to open your eyes. "The unfolding of your words brings light" (Psalm 119:130).
We can have a separate discussion on my Biblical beliefs, and I'm truly happy to have them. Rest assured that types such as Wilson don't colour my view of the Bible in the slightest. They do colour my view of the North Amerivan Church, however.
Again, do pay attention, please do. I could not care one iota if Wilson was "correct" (in as far as correctness even exists with regard to NT exegesis) on whatever issue.
He referred to two specific women as c&nts.
He set up a known pedophile for marriage with a naive 23-year-old woman, who then had a baby with this creature, after which the baby was sexually abused by the man!
He advocates men coming to a lady's private residence to admonish her if she fails to do the dishes. Imagine this playing out in reality!
I cannot possibly overstate how shocking it is to me that men such as yourself simply gloss over this as if it were nothing. These are not minor doctrinal issues. Can you not see this? Seriously mate, what the hell is wrong with you?
It's quite astonishing that you are happy to present such a skewed and slanderous version of events and motivations whilst telling people like *me* to pay attention to the facts. It's very clear that you not only don't know the facts you're talking about here, but that it's not even in your interests to know them. You are predisposed to uncharity. I understand these issues are important and emotive issues. The irony here is that the very passion you have to protect the vulnerable is in agreement with Wilson. You just don't want to see that because it's easier to blame the person you see as the big bad wolf.
As I've mentioned several times, there is plenty of information available for those who want to know about why and how those unfortunate events happened. I recommend you watch Darren Doane's 4-part interview with Wilson, which goes into these details and gives an insight into why various decisions were made over XYZ. If you manage to watch all of it, please let me know your thoughts. But when you do so, I hope you are able to convey how Wilson understands the events as a pastor, not just how you understand them from the outside.
While I'm subjecting myself, with a heavy heart and heaving stomach, to Wilson and his prevarications, here are a few for you. I see a pattern emerging in that you do not respond to what Doug Wilson factually said and did - you simply seem to accuse me of uncharity. So I lifted this from HIS OWN WRITINGS. Please make your position clear.
1. Lifted from the great man's blog: "So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of cunts."
Do you, or do you not, think this is language worthy of a "man of God"?
2. Ditto: "But how does federal headship work in messier situations? […] If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e., that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. […] If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she continues to rebel after patient effort, he should at some point call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit." Douglas Wilson, Federal Husband (p. 28).
Do you, or do you not, think that his in in any way excusable? Do you, or do you not, think that, if carried out as recommended, this would amount to spiritual abuse?
2. From a Sitler timeline that Wilson sent to The American Conservative:
"In November of 2008, one of our elders reported to us that Steven’s probation officer was considering letting him attend our church services Sunday morning. The state decided by January of 2009 to allow him to attend, provided he was constantly attended by a state-trained chaperon. The church also applied a second layer of the same standard, and in addition required that he not attend any service where any of his victims were present. We presented this arrangement to our congregational heads of households meeting, and there were no objections. This meant that Steven began to attend services about three and a half years after he was caught."
Do you, as a father of daughters, think it is suitable for a pastor to let a convicted pedophile attend the same church than your family? The same church as HIS VICTIMS?
In fact, imagine your daughter presented you with a fiancé (sanctioned by your pastor), and it turns out the man has a history of pedophilia, and in order to marry they need to obtain the judge's permission. I'm sure that you would be absolutely fine with this, as long as your cult leader .... sorry, pastor ... assured you that the sinner's repentance is real?
And then, once your daughter and her pedophile husband had a baby boy, the baby boy got abused by the husband, so much so that a chaperone is needed. Would you then still feel confident that you made the right choice condoning their union?
(Please, please, do NOT make me doubt your frigging sanity and say 'yes'.)
I appreciate the message conveyed by sitting on a couch almost totally consumed by fire. ;Thank you for the essay. I was not familiar with Doug Wilson.
Thank Tom. Yes, quite an arresting image! I'm sure you'll hear much more about him in coming years.
Thanks Aaron for articulating this so well and giving a Biblical defence to the approach Pastor Wilson has taken to counter the current cultural mood and the chaos Chritslessness has caused in the west.
My wife and I are tremendously blessed by his ministry, especially their wisdom in raising children and creating a covenant household...May Jesus protect him from error and pride..
Hope many people will appreciate what a means of grace Pastor Wilson is to the current generation of christians.
Thankyou Dawn. And yes, I very much agree. Wilson has been a tremendous blessing to many. I'm sure that's one reason he is so frequently attacked. He has often been willing to take stands on key issues well ahead of the curve, not only from a place of prophetic discernment but of principled faithfulness, because the truth of God's Word matters irrespective of the opinions of the Zeitgeist.
I've just come across this article now and still would like to comment.
I think one has to be particularly dense in a rather worrisome way - or maybe this is a pisstake? - to write a defense like this. Wilson isn't suspect because he speaks truths we don't want to hear. (Trust me, we hear them all day long.) He is under fire for being a truly unpleasant, abusive, nasty piece of work. I don't care how much "truth" you speak about God - the moment you call women c*nts, or "small-breasted biddies" or denigrate your opponents as "gay" AS A PROMINENT PASTOR AND BIBLE TEACHER you should be whipped out of the church until you seriously repent.
There is a slew of well-founded and very troubling accusations against this utter creep (Piper isn't that much different, hence the platform) and defending him as some paragon of cultural import is really quite baffling.
Thank God the UK is disconnected from such evil.
It sounds like you're not especially interested in understanding either Wilson or Piper. You may see them as terrible wolves, but you need to have very good reasons to denounce them as strongly as that. I recommend 1. you read my second post on Wilson, and 2. you read Wilson's defences of his controversies. Then decide whether you want to stand by every word you've just written, or whether you'd like to add some further caveats to your disagreement. Thanks.
Where to start.
I actually just read Wilson's latest blog post, incidentally. It's a series of 'responses' to reader questions. He has a very clear MO, where any serious questions or accusations are batted away either with non-responses or counter accusations of 'I thought you were asking in good faith, but now I find you are not'. He is impossible to nail down, because he is a great rhetorician (albeit one driven by a foul and unrepentant soul) and he's been around the block a few times, so I wasn't really surprised.
I fully stand by every word I've written, but my gist is you.
It is entirely correct that Wilson has referred to women - specific women or women in general - as c&nts, small-breasted biddies, lumberjack dykes (as opposed to the 'prettier' Christian ladies).
It is entirely correct that Wilson has recommended, in one of his books, that a husband trains his wife in her duties, so much so that if she rebels over not washing the dishes, the elders should rock up at the house and talk to her.
It is entirely correct that Wilson set up a single lady with a known and convicted pedophile in his church, with the result that this man then sexually abused their baby boy.
It is entirely correct that Wilson covered up other instances of sexual abuse; that he has a truly harmful view of marriage, an entirely unbiblical view of male authority (along with John Piper) and uses language that is thoroughly crude and vulgar with the excuse that it's a 'serrated edge'.
It is entirely correct that when criticized heavily on a particular point, he warned his critics that if they didn't repent, they would lose their salvation.
Let's come back to you. We can well have doctrinal bones to pick with Bible teachers without dismissing them wholesale. (For example, I love listening to Andrew Wommack but do not condone his teaching on tithing.) That much is true. But there are things that should put a "man of God" firmly and decisively beyond the pale.
And one of these things is - MUST be - verbal and/or physical abuse of women and children, or enablement thereof. Categorically, every time, end of. I am therefore not the slightest bit interested whether he is right on everything else. We simply cannot say, well, Doug is a jolly good Bible teacher, and look how he sticks it to the world, shame about him calling women c&nts, but hey, nobody's perfect!
So if you do this, and I surmise you do, there are two options.
One, you are a person just like him, and best to be avoided, which I do not believe.
Two, you are a man who just cannot fathom the pain that Christian women - Christian CONSERVATIVE women like me - feel when they come across this kind of rancid garbage, because you agree that women should be oppressed, broken, directed, trained, subjugated and disciplined if they don't fall in line. You do not recognize the harm his words and actions truly have because you cannot fathom what it feels like to be at the receiving end, because as a man, you never will be. You and your ilk drone on about the "weaker vessels" but in reality, with the advice Wilson dishes out, this just means we are yours for the breaking.
Even if you lack the imagination for true solidarity, think about the effect his antics have on the wider world. Would any normal woman, any normal couple in fact, want to join this kind of cult? What kind man would want to take his wife to that church so that she can be quiet (Wilson's words)? What kind of woman would want to follow a "faith" that teaches her that her husband is her "Lord" and that his word is "final" (again, Wilson's words)? Isn't it telling that it is mainly churchy people who join his church and move to Mühlhausen, err, I mean Moscow?
What kind of repute does all of this bring to the name of Jesus? (Who only seems to feature very marginally in Wilson's universe.) Do you truly believe that this kind of rubbish encourages, builds up, attracts people and glorifies God?
Yes, he's counter-cultural and we know our culture is rotten. I can see why this is an easy trap for men in particular, who might well have grown up with a sense of entitlement regarding their place in the world, and now feel that female competition requires them to adjust. But the Christian response is not conjuring up a world that either never was or, where it existed, resulted in untold harm to both women and men. The Christian response is to be better.
Wilson says the role of Christian men is to protect their womenfolk but only the good Christian ladies. Be better!
Ok, so again you've written much there which I would hope you will come to reflect differently on in time. Much of your rhetoric is simply uncharitable and unreasonable. As I said, denunciation is appropriate when appropriate. You seem to think Wilson (and those who support him) believe unbiblical things which lead to the harm of women. It's the exact opposite.
You also seem to oppose blatantly biblical views from texts like 1Peter 3, Eph. 5, 1Tim. 2, 1Cor. 11, 1Cor. 14, Col. 3, etc. It's not like it's a "quiet" theme in the New Testament. Whatever your interpretation of those passages, you need to deal with the rhetoric there. It's Peter (not Wilson) who uses the patriarch's wives as an example for Christian wives (noting that they called their husbands "lord"). What do you do with that? How does it fit with your biblical convictions? Why do you believe some parts of the Bible, but not others? It seems you have allowed a grossly uncharitable reading of Wilson's approach to colour your view of the Bible. As I noted in the second post, Wilson's approach is by no means perfect. I disagree with the rationale in some of the use of language you refer to, for example.
Regardless of what you think about Wilson, from much of what you've written above, it sounds like your bigger problem is with the Biblical authors, and thus, the authority of God's Word itself. Ask God to open your eyes. "The unfolding of your words brings light" (Psalm 119:130).
We can have a separate discussion on my Biblical beliefs, and I'm truly happy to have them. Rest assured that types such as Wilson don't colour my view of the Bible in the slightest. They do colour my view of the North Amerivan Church, however.
Again, do pay attention, please do. I could not care one iota if Wilson was "correct" (in as far as correctness even exists with regard to NT exegesis) on whatever issue.
He referred to two specific women as c&nts.
He set up a known pedophile for marriage with a naive 23-year-old woman, who then had a baby with this creature, after which the baby was sexually abused by the man!
He advocates men coming to a lady's private residence to admonish her if she fails to do the dishes. Imagine this playing out in reality!
I cannot possibly overstate how shocking it is to me that men such as yourself simply gloss over this as if it were nothing. These are not minor doctrinal issues. Can you not see this? Seriously mate, what the hell is wrong with you?
It's quite astonishing that you are happy to present such a skewed and slanderous version of events and motivations whilst telling people like *me* to pay attention to the facts. It's very clear that you not only don't know the facts you're talking about here, but that it's not even in your interests to know them. You are predisposed to uncharity. I understand these issues are important and emotive issues. The irony here is that the very passion you have to protect the vulnerable is in agreement with Wilson. You just don't want to see that because it's easier to blame the person you see as the big bad wolf.
As I've mentioned several times, there is plenty of information available for those who want to know about why and how those unfortunate events happened. I recommend you watch Darren Doane's 4-part interview with Wilson, which goes into these details and gives an insight into why various decisions were made over XYZ. If you manage to watch all of it, please let me know your thoughts. But when you do so, I hope you are able to convey how Wilson understands the events as a pastor, not just how you understand them from the outside.
Here's part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEpsoQqfWtk
While I'm subjecting myself, with a heavy heart and heaving stomach, to Wilson and his prevarications, here are a few for you. I see a pattern emerging in that you do not respond to what Doug Wilson factually said and did - you simply seem to accuse me of uncharity. So I lifted this from HIS OWN WRITINGS. Please make your position clear.
1. Lifted from the great man's blog: "So let me tell you what this symbolism really means. This is what they are saying. They are shamelessly declaring to the world that they are just a couple of cunts."
Do you, or do you not, think this is language worthy of a "man of God"?
2. Ditto: "But how does federal headship work in messier situations? […] If, for example, the problem is one of poor housekeeping, he should require something very simple, i.e., that the dishes be done after every meal before anything else is done. […] If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she continues to rebel after patient effort, he should at some point call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit." Douglas Wilson, Federal Husband (p. 28).
Do you, or do you not, think that his in in any way excusable? Do you, or do you not, think that, if carried out as recommended, this would amount to spiritual abuse?
2. From a Sitler timeline that Wilson sent to The American Conservative:
"In November of 2008, one of our elders reported to us that Steven’s probation officer was considering letting him attend our church services Sunday morning. The state decided by January of 2009 to allow him to attend, provided he was constantly attended by a state-trained chaperon. The church also applied a second layer of the same standard, and in addition required that he not attend any service where any of his victims were present. We presented this arrangement to our congregational heads of households meeting, and there were no objections. This meant that Steven began to attend services about three and a half years after he was caught."
Do you, as a father of daughters, think it is suitable for a pastor to let a convicted pedophile attend the same church than your family? The same church as HIS VICTIMS?
In fact, imagine your daughter presented you with a fiancé (sanctioned by your pastor), and it turns out the man has a history of pedophilia, and in order to marry they need to obtain the judge's permission. I'm sure that you would be absolutely fine with this, as long as your cult leader .... sorry, pastor ... assured you that the sinner's repentance is real?
And then, once your daughter and her pedophile husband had a baby boy, the baby boy got abused by the husband, so much so that a chaperone is needed. Would you then still feel confident that you made the right choice condoning their union?
(Please, please, do NOT make me doubt your frigging sanity and say 'yes'.)