This was really helpful for me. I was a Wilson devotee for about a decade in the Before Time. Read almost everything he wrote. I enjoyed the wit and serrated edge. In the After Time, Moore has been one of a handful of voices the Lord has used to keep me sane and faithful. I listened to the Bulletin podcast a couple days ago, and while I think extreme terms like "Satanic" might be justified for the Webbon Wing of the extended Moscow universe, even I - a Moore Guy - was a bit stunned by the repeated use of such language.
But if I have to pick a team... Wait! I don't have to! Thanks for reminding me of that.
Also, I don't understand why Moore, and others like him who I think are generally on the right side of these arguments, can't grasp that this kind of over-the-top reaction IS EXACTLY WHAT WILSON WANTS! I think the entire CREC denomination is smaller than a single Evangellyfish megachurch these folks love to deride. While I don't think we should completely ignore them (Wilson has significant influence, including at my baptist church), engaging with every contrived controversy just feeds the beast (by design).
Doug Wilson's ideology used to be considered on the fringe. It no longer is, it has seeped into mainstream evangelicalism and is now publicly espoused by the Secretary of Defense. To brush over the destructive impacts of Wilson's comments or actions in this way is a sin levelling that feels dismissive of the abuse of power felt by women and minorities in these teachings. I feel you have missed a very current and deeply felt concern within evangelical circles. If you are not aware, here is an expression of that concern in someone else's words: 'This week, Doug Wilson, the leader of a cult church movement that the Secretary of Defense also attends, was interviewed on CNN.
In that interview, he implied that women's main function was reproduction--even though the Bible says nothing of the sort (Paul suggests women be single ideally so that they can serve God wholeheartedly).
Members of his church also explained how they want to repeal the 19th amendment which allows women to vote, and how women are supposed to obey their husbands.
And the Secretary of Defense tweeted his agreement with the interview.
My daughters and granddaughters are growing up in a church that diminishes them even more than the church I grew up in. In the 1980s, women were gaining ground and were considered equal.
Now we have the Secretary of Defense tweeting his agreement that women AREN'T equal.
And it all happened because when authors said things that weren't quite this bad, we let them get away with it. We didn't push back.
So what will we do now? Will we allow this movement to hijack evangelicalism? Or will we say a firm "NO"? Will we stay in these toxic spaces, or will we create healthy ones?
Because this is vile. This is demonic. And I pray the gates of hell do not prevail.' Sheila Wray Gregoire
I honestly don’t recognize the person you seem to be directing this to. You may want to re-read my essay, particularly the paragraph with many links to my many, many criticisms of Wilson over the years. I am one of the few who do not give him a “pass.” I just don’t engage in the false hyperbole of people like the one you quoted. Truth matters, both ways, wherever the chips fall.
I still read it as too easy on Doug Wilson and comparing his 'theology' and comments (which are unbiblical and abusive towards women) to Moore's as sin levelling. Sincere question: What in the comments by Gregoire do you consider false hyperbole?
He isn’t a “cult leader,” for starters. You can read the CREC confession of faith for yourself, and he isn’t even its leader. And he didn’t say that women’s “main function is reproduction.” Nor to my knowledge has he ever said such a thing. He made what was an obvious too-clever comment attempting to signal that many of his enemies think men can have babies (do you disagree?). The joke bombed. As for the 19th Amendment stuff, I wrote a very critical piece just last week. How is that going easy? I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you can disagree with many of Moscow’s emphases and distinctives (as I do), but you will not be able to frame them as “beyond the pale” or “Satanic” without lying. I say that as a critic who has read Doug Wilson for thirty years. The world is not a melodrama populated by people divided into white hats and black hats.
There is a long history of Doug Wilson's comments, writings and actions that collectively do not reflect a Biblical view of women or other important teachings. If the CREC actually endorses the beliefs and actions that have been experienced by Christians who have left his church, then I would question their soundness. No one thinks men can have babies, his 'joke' is simply part of his longstanding view of women's place and should be taken in that context. I believe myself and others have the agency and ability to look at the teachings of this man and conclude that his teachings are not sound or Christlike (beyond the pale), even if I am only a woman, therefore likely to be drawn to melodrama and simplistic answers. I have appreciated your calling out bad players and wrong thinking in the past, which is why I felt this article did not do justice to the very harmful impacts of Wilson's teachings and actions. We apparently disagree on this.
That’s completely fine. He is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. I encourage anyone to have the agency to look at his teachings. Just make sure you look at his teachings, not soundbytes fed to you by people who are not honest actors. I’ve READ the “long history,” AND I have read his many critics. It is way more complicated than the slogans suggest.
This was really helpful for me. I was a Wilson devotee for about a decade in the Before Time. Read almost everything he wrote. I enjoyed the wit and serrated edge. In the After Time, Moore has been one of a handful of voices the Lord has used to keep me sane and faithful. I listened to the Bulletin podcast a couple days ago, and while I think extreme terms like "Satanic" might be justified for the Webbon Wing of the extended Moscow universe, even I - a Moore Guy - was a bit stunned by the repeated use of such language.
But if I have to pick a team... Wait! I don't have to! Thanks for reminding me of that.
Also, I don't understand why Moore, and others like him who I think are generally on the right side of these arguments, can't grasp that this kind of over-the-top reaction IS EXACTLY WHAT WILSON WANTS! I think the entire CREC denomination is smaller than a single Evangellyfish megachurch these folks love to deride. While I don't think we should completely ignore them (Wilson has significant influence, including at my baptist church), engaging with every contrived controversy just feeds the beast (by design).
Ohhh. Sigh. Groan. I subscribe to CT, have for years, and really count on it, don't like for it to be involved in any rivalry.
A wise voice for our time! Praise God!
Brian, I continue to greatly appreciate your wisdom.
Doug Wilson's ideology used to be considered on the fringe. It no longer is, it has seeped into mainstream evangelicalism and is now publicly espoused by the Secretary of Defense. To brush over the destructive impacts of Wilson's comments or actions in this way is a sin levelling that feels dismissive of the abuse of power felt by women and minorities in these teachings. I feel you have missed a very current and deeply felt concern within evangelical circles. If you are not aware, here is an expression of that concern in someone else's words: 'This week, Doug Wilson, the leader of a cult church movement that the Secretary of Defense also attends, was interviewed on CNN.
In that interview, he implied that women's main function was reproduction--even though the Bible says nothing of the sort (Paul suggests women be single ideally so that they can serve God wholeheartedly).
Members of his church also explained how they want to repeal the 19th amendment which allows women to vote, and how women are supposed to obey their husbands.
And the Secretary of Defense tweeted his agreement with the interview.
My daughters and granddaughters are growing up in a church that diminishes them even more than the church I grew up in. In the 1980s, women were gaining ground and were considered equal.
Now we have the Secretary of Defense tweeting his agreement that women AREN'T equal.
And it all happened because when authors said things that weren't quite this bad, we let them get away with it. We didn't push back.
So what will we do now? Will we allow this movement to hijack evangelicalism? Or will we say a firm "NO"? Will we stay in these toxic spaces, or will we create healthy ones?
Because this is vile. This is demonic. And I pray the gates of hell do not prevail.' Sheila Wray Gregoire
I honestly don’t recognize the person you seem to be directing this to. You may want to re-read my essay, particularly the paragraph with many links to my many, many criticisms of Wilson over the years. I am one of the few who do not give him a “pass.” I just don’t engage in the false hyperbole of people like the one you quoted. Truth matters, both ways, wherever the chips fall.
I still read it as too easy on Doug Wilson and comparing his 'theology' and comments (which are unbiblical and abusive towards women) to Moore's as sin levelling. Sincere question: What in the comments by Gregoire do you consider false hyperbole?
He isn’t a “cult leader,” for starters. You can read the CREC confession of faith for yourself, and he isn’t even its leader. And he didn’t say that women’s “main function is reproduction.” Nor to my knowledge has he ever said such a thing. He made what was an obvious too-clever comment attempting to signal that many of his enemies think men can have babies (do you disagree?). The joke bombed. As for the 19th Amendment stuff, I wrote a very critical piece just last week. How is that going easy? I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you can disagree with many of Moscow’s emphases and distinctives (as I do), but you will not be able to frame them as “beyond the pale” or “Satanic” without lying. I say that as a critic who has read Doug Wilson for thirty years. The world is not a melodrama populated by people divided into white hats and black hats.
There is a long history of Doug Wilson's comments, writings and actions that collectively do not reflect a Biblical view of women or other important teachings. If the CREC actually endorses the beliefs and actions that have been experienced by Christians who have left his church, then I would question their soundness. No one thinks men can have babies, his 'joke' is simply part of his longstanding view of women's place and should be taken in that context. I believe myself and others have the agency and ability to look at the teachings of this man and conclude that his teachings are not sound or Christlike (beyond the pale), even if I am only a woman, therefore likely to be drawn to melodrama and simplistic answers. I have appreciated your calling out bad players and wrong thinking in the past, which is why I felt this article did not do justice to the very harmful impacts of Wilson's teachings and actions. We apparently disagree on this.
That’s completely fine. He is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. I encourage anyone to have the agency to look at his teachings. Just make sure you look at his teachings, not soundbytes fed to you by people who are not honest actors. I’ve READ the “long history,” AND I have read his many critics. It is way more complicated than the slogans suggest.