On Doug Wilson II
The Spectre of Reputation and the Advent of Reformation
Bringing reform to the established authorities never sounds like a good idea to the established authorities at the time.
Kevin DeYoung, a key figure within The Gospel Coalition movement, wrote an influential article not too long ago entitled “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood”. It caused quite the stir online, which is not unusual for the consequences of one’s opinion on Wilson et al at any given time.
My Response to DeYoung
At the time of Kevin DeYoung’s article, I posted a response which garnered some 60,000 views within a couple of days. I’ve tweaked it very lightly, and added numerous links for those who may wish to follow some trails. (It might make sense to read DeYoung’s article first).
Dear @RevKevDeYoung,
Thankyou for your thoughtful piece on Doug Wilson. I hope it brings clarity and unity in unexpected ways.
My observations:
1. You seem overly concerned with "optics" and keeping up appearances (with the right kind of people). This itself seems like an "optic" because it undermines the substance. Appearances do matter, but God cares about the heart, substance, and fruit, and whilst you referred to good fruit in Moscow, you did not seem to make a connection between that fruit and some of the things you are critiquing in terms of what faithfulness might look like in a different "mood" to the one you have been accustomed to.
2. Relatedly, your already-influential take seems to be at-distance, observed from afar/online rather than from first-hand engagement or direct conversation with key people at the coalface. It would be great to see a panel or podcast discussion between you and some of the Moscow guys because you seem to be someone who is genuinely trying to bring clarity to the issue, and I'm sure such a conversation would help "the mood" in all sorts of ways.
3. One of the things I think you mean by focussing on "mood" is "tone". But I wonder whether the distinctively irenic Reformed™️ tone which you seem to call for as an antidote is necessarily more "Biblical"? Most of the key figures in the Bible don't actually talk or act like Reformed™️ folk. Is the way of Jesus always meant to sound like a sensible Reformed pastor of the kind we've been accustomed to in recent decades/centuries or are there other ways to be/act which we see in church history and throughout Scripture in numerous ways?
4. How many of the edgier Biblical characters would also be brought before conservative Presbyteries for discipline? Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, John, etc. all say things which I think would get them in trouble (with sensible Reformed Christians) on social media today. How do the ways of such men inform or challenge the ways you speak and engage? (True, such men do not always speak the same way, but as you've said yourself, neither does Wilson. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent). This does not excuse situations where genuine sin needs to be disciplined; it simply challenges the assumption that what most shocks the established must be out of sync with the kingdom of God, when it may often be the case that it's out of sync with the "kingdom" of our present ecclesial establishment.
5. Do you allow some of those edgier exemplars in Scripture and church history to challenge you at all in your own style, which - whilst not attracting the kind of unhelpful controversy Wilson's obviously does - may also be in need of Biblical challenge from the other direction? How might that look? What might people say about you if you did? And would you be prepared to be thought ill of as a result (assuming you were doing so from a pure, godly, and even "missional" motive)? How often, for example, do you consciously think about being "as one on the Right" to those on the Right. There are a lot of people over there who might be in need of a contextualised Gospel message. Will you provide them with one or will you ignore them as most of established evangelicalism tends to do?
6. Whilst you were very fair-handed in parts, your critique of Wilson's motivations was surprisingly uncharitable and shallow by your standards. (e.g. a cynical reading of NQN as mere marketing and self-promotion, with no conception of the way they think/talk about economics in the kingdom, of idol-smashing, of joy, etc.; or the idea that he just "loves the fight" for its own sake, etc., rather than out of Biblical principles in action).
7. Your critique of the optics of the Wilson/Moscow tribe was made without any awareness of the coordinates of your own tribe/sphere. You do not write in a void. Your tribe (TGC) also cares about its position, its borders, and its niche within the evangelical marketplace; and it’s no coincidence that Wilson's tribe are overtly challenging many of the ways your tribe operates. So, at the very least, some awareness of the fact that you know your piece was not "apolitical" would have strengthened your critique by putting more cards on the table.
8. I've heard well-reasoned defences of the context for lots of Wilson's "saltiest" speech, which you did not allude to at all. Such context is not unimportant to how you read them/him, and so to simply post the worst aspects of some of those shock-quotes contextlessly was, it seems, knowingly irresponsible if you mean to promote genuine mutual understanding of each other's intra-tribal concerns (which I think is at least part of why you wrote this). Many people will see those quotes and never go near anything he says again, and I'm sure you know that. That's on him too, for sure; but you know better about at least why he thinks doing this is important/necessary, and you did not say so.
9. Even with "the context" I'm still inclined to agree with you that much of the worse stuff Wilson has said (the stuff you referred to) was imprudent at best and a good deal of it almost certainly not necessary for the points he needed to make. I can see why he still defends the principle and wants to extend that Overton Window by speaking stronger than the present ecclesial establishment allows. This is something I care about too. Even so, I still think he has sometimes overstepped the bounds of prudence in how he has applied that instinct. Not all the flak he gets for using such language - caveats and all - is unjust. Overall I’m not sure it’s quite been worth the amount of energy that now seems to be required to defend it. Of course, many might say the same to me about the (milder!) things I say on this (milder!) side of the pond. And indeed, Wilson himself might say that such a concern for linguistic collateral damage did not seem to bother Ezekiel when he used “inappropriate” language and/or metaphors to denounce evil. Quite.
10. Your article makes clear there is much in what Wilson says which you already agree with. But the things you note (e.g. emphases on classical education, family, male/female distinctiveness, etc.) is mainly comprised of the "sensible"-sounding things which likely already accord with your own nature and/or ecclesial tribe. Are you actually challenged by anything you see/hear there which does not already accord with your own existing preferences? If not, your critique seems to amount to: "I like the things that are like me, and I think you would do better if you stopped doing the things that are like you, and did more things that are like me."
11. I think the kingdom of God allows for much colourful variety even among those who fight the good fight in very different ways. Iron must sharpen iron, and your article is a good sharpening tool for brothers who probably ought to be in more unity than they are. I only hope the iron sharpens at your end too, because the many people in these fractious times of ours who have noticed things which accord with the Moscow mood are not merely being won over by a "fleshly" mojo; they are seeing something with genuine Biblical and missiological warrant which needs to be recovered in our time. And woe to those who do not see it.
A Steadfast Vision
Among the many helpful responses that came out sometime after I responded to De-Young (including Joe Rigney’s article, and Wilson’s own response) I came across an insightful piece by Tim Bayly, who points to something especially key which ought not be missed when assessing the respective merits of Wilson’s character and ministry.
Bayly noted that whilst it is true that Wilson et al now appears to be “on-trend”, and whilst he and the Canon Press team are certainly doing many things to actively promote “the Moscow mood” further afield, Doug Wilson is not doing anything different to what he’s always done. He remains essentially a local pastor who believes the Bible and acts upon his convictions, even if those convictions of necessity have wider implications beyond his locale.
This includes saying things that are unpopularly true and working them out in practice (thus facing all the pastoral messiness which might result from that). It also includes building good institutions which might make a difference for the good of his church, his community, and his nation (i.e. lots and lots of people). He has essentially been pursuing that vision for some 40 years not merely to build a platform or draw attention to himself but because he believes those are good and righteous things to do.
Indeed, it’s worth noting that for most of those 40 years he has been either held at several arms’ length, deliberately ignored, or directly attacked by the evangelical elites, to say nothing of hit-pieces from secular media outlets. In short: you don’t say/do the kind of things he seems to say/do if you’re in it for the money, fame, or power. Whilst no leader is beyond correction, I believe more evangelicals ought to be looking to the likes of Wilson for inspiration in our times than looking at him with suspicion.
By all means, things should be well considered and looked into properly. Christ Church and Canon Press appear to encourage people to do the same. They do so because they appear to believe in the things they’re doing. And it seems they’re doing the things they’re doing because they believe they’re good, true, and Biblical.
It’s not an uncommon experience to be thinking aloud about something the Bible seems to be saying but that few contemporary leaders are not saying, and then to find that one of the people who has been saying that thing already for decades has been someone like Doug Wilson. This is because his commitment has not been to the crowd of contemporary convenience, but to the truth of the Word, however long it takes the crowd to see it.
A Time for Reform
At this time in the life of the Church, such a vision is inevitably reformational: of necessity it challenges the ecclesial establishment with what that establishment has glossed over. Indeed, when people like Wilson start saying things that challenge the gloss, don’t be surprised if those in the glossy ecclesial establishment think it’s a bad idea. However winsomely you go about your business, such a reaction is inevitable. It might even be understandable. Reformers always seem like a bad idea to those who believe the way things work are more or less ok just the way they are.
Not all who posture as reformers are actually reformers, of course. And reformers themselves do need to be questioned. Just because they may see what the present establishment has not seen, or has been unwilling to acknowledge, this does not exempt the reformer from critique. Yet they must be critiqued by the Word of God, not by newly (or oldly) fashioned ecclesial and/or cultural practices which we’ve imbibed over time and have accidentally started to place on a par with the authority of Scripture.
Such practices (or: traditions!) might include things like the idea that being godly means: being exclusively nice; being broadly feminist; being perpetually cautious; being mostly irenic; being always pietistic; being apolitical. The Word of God never told us such things. We’ve developed them ourselves, by piecing together bits of the Word here or there, undermining other bits, and attaching them to cultural tropes which just so happen to echo the “mood” of what has come to be expected of a Christian within a modern secular culture.
And as we’ve added these “abiblical” elements to our criteria, we’ve simultaneously been ignoring or deliberately undermining parts of Scripture which are clear and obvious because they do not align with these new practices, rules, and cultures which we’ve quietly accepted over time. When Jesus critiqued the Pharisees, remember, it wasn’t because they were “too Biblical” but because they were not Biblical enough:
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (Mark 7:9)
Not all human traditions will be inherently evil or unbiblical, but there is a net effect when so many things build up that they begin to obscure the clear Word of God. Whenever this happens for too long, you can assume some kind of reformation will be required to get us out of the mess.
If reformation is indeed what needs to happen in our time, we’ll need ears to hear, eyes to see, feet to go, and hands to do whatever it is that needs to be done. And this means we will need to recognise the difference between those who were leading the way while most were still asleep, and those who do not seem to want to lead the way and would prefer to put us all back to sleep so they can carry on doing whatever it is they were doing that got us into the mess in the first place.
Carefulness or Courage?
Challenging the way things appear to be takes courage. Especially when it might mean challenging (indirectly or otherwise) the leaders of our time who may have been asleep at the wheel and missed a number of junctions. But even among those who might be with him on many things, Wilson still has his critics from those who are concerned by all that such reformation to the ecclesial norm might entail.
One of his (friendlier) critics, Owen Strachan, offered another response around the dangers of over-emphasising courage. He quotes a sermon from 2012, where Wilson said:
Desperate times call for faithful men, and not for the careful men. The careful men come later, and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.
Strachan, no stranger to courage himself in other fora, seems concerned that Wilson’s framing presents a zero-sum game: courage or carefulness. Strachan wants “to challenge—in good cheer—the idea that we Christian men should pursue courage but not pursue carefulness”. He thus highlights fifteen examples in Scripture where we are called to “be careful” (e.g. Deut. 12:32; Ezek. 20:19-20, Luke 11:35; Acts 20:28–31; 2Pet. 3:17, etc.).
On the surface it makes sense to bring such balance to the “flamethrower spirits” who might follow after Wilson bent upon wisdomless zeal. But I think Strachan - careful as he is - actually misses the thrust of what’s really going on in this call for courage, and the times we’re in.
The interesting thing is that virtually all the “be careful” passages which Strachan cites are not actually about carefulness as a general “virtue”, but are rather about “taking care” to be faithful, “being careful” to not neglect God’s Word, “being careful” not to align yourselves with the darkness. Are these not the very things Wilson is taking great pains to be “careful” about in these secular anti-Christian times? Indeed, is Wilson’s carefulness on that score not the very thing getting him in all this trouble with all those “careful” types?
Clearly, what matters is not “being careful” but being careful about what God says to be careful about. Carefulness, when elevated to a general virtue, basically always turns into the kind of cautiousness which too easily morphs into cowardice. This is one of the most observable and repetitive patterns in the history of the institutional Church, and why it seems that God keeps needing to send prophets, apostles, and reformers to put things right again.
Courage without wisdom can certainly be mutated into a vice too. But is that really the problem the Church faces right now? Does western Christianity suffer from an overabundance of “warrior spirits” marauding around the place with no love or care or thought for the negative consequences of what they’re doing?
Sometimes, saying right things at the wrong time is the wrong thing. The problem of our time is not folly posturing as courage, but cowardice posturing as carefulness. Those who don’t see this simply aren’t seeing what’s been going on; or it’s not in their interests to see it.
Indeed, perhaps the chief deception in the Church today is that the call for carefulness is the “careful” option. Above all, we must be especially careful today that we do not lose our courage tomorrow. We’re certainly going to need it.