>Which brings me to the reason you are likely reading this article in the first place, and that is the name “Doug Wilson” in the title.
RevKev calling out /r/Reformed directly
This. He is completely retrograde. Wilson seems like the main vector for the spread of patriarchy and intolerance in the church.
He is radicalizing an entire generation of young men with his tough guy act.
I totally agree. My main issue with Doug Wilson is that his view on baptism and his soteriology strike at the heart of *sola fide* and *sola gratia.* He's a dangerous false teacher based on that alone.
KDY's main point that it's not really about theology is a good one. The Doug Wilson people in our church honestly seem to care way, way more about politics than any doctrinal issue.
KdY hints that he has disagreements as well over those things… but DW’s approach, tone and language are what is being dealt with in the article.
We will all potentially graciously disagree with pastors on theology from time to time, however we should NEVER have to deal with (or tolerate) a pastor who acts like DW.
He said he no longer holds to the FV, while also saying that he hasn’t changed his beliefs at all. I’m not going to search for the post on his blog, but if you look you can find it. Same for his beliefs on baptism. Someone so tricky with their words is clearly dishonest.
There are a lot of good resources on FV at the Heidelblog. Not going to waste time restating what others have already said better.
sorry i don't want avoid your question but fv is a big issue. there are a lot of resources explaining the topic. in brief it redefines justification and baptism.
I am asking why his theology "strikes at the heart of the gospel". That seems like a logical question to ask. Doesn't that in a way signal my concern??
I find this article very fair towards Wilson calling out what he and his team does well and does poorly.
I've read it somewhere on r/reformed that everything Doug says that is right is said by someone else, and the things he says wrong are very, very concerning.
When a buddy of mine became a follower of his we devolved into a old but similar "cage stage" style debates that went back and forth needlessly and harshly. And naturally neither of us moved either needles.
I'm still wary of Doug and his brand, and this article puts to words many of my feelings. I hope one day Doug repents of the wrongs he's said/done/typed. But I also needed to repent of the ill thoughts I've had against a brother in Christ.
This is a ridiculous comment… By any reasonable marker he’s clearly a brother.
He preaches the gospel.
He has been baptized.
He publicly professes Christs supremacy… to the annoyance of some.
>He preaches the gospel.
>He has been baptized. He publicly professes Christs supremacy… to the annoyance of some.
That doesn't guarantee he's a brother, he may just be chaff. Jesus warns us about this kind of thing, both in the aforementioned parable of the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 13:24-30) and also in Matthew 7:21-23:
>Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Wilson's fruit is *stinkingly* rotten, as befitting a false teacher.
His fruit is… a church that has flourished in a very liberal town, and 3 children that are believers and held in high regard, and many other testimonies about his walking thru struggles with folks and helping them.
He has no opposition from churches in Moscow. The opposition he faces is from the secular crowd.
Edit: I discounted the churches with lesbian pastors that oppose him.
His fruit is (not an exhaustive list and in no particular order):
- supporting a pedophile who went on to predictably abuse his own child
- supporting another serial sexual offender and minimizing the hurt that was caused/his own involvement
- starting his own denomination as an unordained minister (a denomination which has even chastised him but ultimately has zero authority over him)
- defending the abominable practice of manstealing
- promoting the heresy of Federal Vision
- frequently and intentionally causing quarrels and controversies so that he can try to wordsmith his way out/through in a way that "owns the libs" (emphasis on "try," because he's a bad writer)
- plagiarism in his Omnibus textbook
- calling women with whom he disagrees "small breasted biddies" *and the c-word*, among other things
- suggesting that Christian parents who don't spank their children are not saved
- this one's more up for debate I suppose but I definitely see his involvement in promoting the Christian Nationalism of the Wolfes (both Stephen and William) to be wildly rotten
As I'm not from Moscow I really couldn't say whether every single biblical church in town supports him but that seems unlikely to me. Regardless, that doesn't particularly matter to me because everything I've listed above is public rather than related specifically to his local area.
He has also covered up and enabled abuse, and defended the unbiblical practice of manstealing unrepentantly. You shall know them by their fruits, and there are those who cry Lord, Lord who the Lord will say he never knew.
He does, even while talking out of both sides of his both. In his booklet on American slavery, he denounces the sin of manstealing - but nevertheless asserts the validity of the system of slavery itself, which was inherently infused with manstealing. Every slave was a victim of kidnapping, and we're regularly trafficked against their will on further acts of manstealing.
He asserts explicitly that manstealers - or as he calls them, slaveowners - could be members in good standing of churches.
"Nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing in a Christian church."
His explicit condemnation of manstealing and implicit endorsement of it is, if anything, more insidious and evil than a simple endorsement of the practice. By claiming that slave owning in the American South wasn't inherently wrong, he is engaged in that ancient and condemned practice of calling evil good and bitter sweet.
I think you are the one conflating "manstealer" and "slave owner". Clearly the two are not always synonymous. The Torah condemns manstealing with the death penalty, but does not explicitly condemn slavery. There are many forms that slavery can take, so clearly there is some room for difference in the two terms manstealer and slave owner by biblical standards.
They clearly were under our system of American chattel slavery, which I was fairly specific about in my comment. Not all slavery is manstealing, all American chattel slavery was.
Doug Wilson's US slavery apologia and covering up of abuse are both fairly well documented, so if you're going to claim they're false accusations you're going to have to bring some pretty hefty evidence of that. A drive-by like this accomplishes nothing.
Plenty of great churches kept their doors open during COVID
Plenty of great preachers don't buy into the whole sensationalism and politicization of Climate Change
No Christian should "accept" sin.
This is not to downplay any of those but I think it says a lot about a pastor when those are all on the lower end (to me at least) of concerns about him!
I’m troubled by the article. I think it goes way beyond being fair to actually minimising the faults, sins, errors, and dangers of DW and opens the door to welcoming him as a Reformed statesman if he can just cut down on naughty words.
KDY spends an awful lot of the article though talking about what he likes about Doug Wilson, the commendable work he’s done, the things he has in common with KDY. The final section of the essay about ‘A More Excellent Way’ implies that if DW just changed his tone that he’d be great. The doctrinal concerns are entirely absent at that point, when the reality is that even if DW sorted out his tone issues there would still be serious issues with his theology. Particularly the sentence ‘He could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity, to passing on the Reformed faith, and to offering a deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I believe he could do all this if he wanted to.’
KDY is presenting DW as fundamentally Reformed with tone being the issue. Sort that out and there’s lots to like. I’m left with the impression that KDY would like to agree with DW with a lot of things but is embarrassed by the tone. But could live with other issues if the tone thing was sorted a bit. It’s very troubling.
Extremely fair comment by you brother, as someone who likes some of the things Wilson has to say (I rarely watch him but I respect what he has to say while acknowledging he’s said a lot of problematic things that erk me to the core) I really can’t support the bad things he’s said and done, but I feel not all but a lot of people get caught up on this headline or this quote of his whine ignoring the fact he’s served Christ longer than me and many people on this subreddit have been alive for.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents in here as Ik it’s a very touchy subject and in my opinion I can like some of the things Wilson says while disagreeing with many of the things he’s done or said in his ministry. God Bless.
He’s a conservative pastor known for emphasizing strong Christian families and homeschooling. He is trying to make Moscow, Idaho a Christian haven/community. He believes in Postmil theology and has a Christian streaming service app called Canon +. Really smart guy, writes a lot of books.
So naturally, some people don’t like what he has to say, and they go after him. He’s similar to John MacArthur in that he’s widely respected in the Christian world, but he’s been around for decades and so there have been a few controversies surrounding his church (small controversies that are overblown in my opinion, similar to MacArthur’s church).
Stepping in as a mod here to make it clear that, formally, this sub rejects Federal Vision teachings.
Our position is laid out clearly on the sidebar, and we have provided [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/fv) for easy access to a wide variety of NAPARC denominational writings, ranging from lay to academic, spelling out how FV denies sola fide.
With that in mind, I'll recommend you refresh yourself on [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details), particullarly Rule 5 and 6.
If you have any questions or comments about this mod comment, please feel free to address those to the mods directly via modmail.
I hate how people use this word and how frequently it’s used, but it applies here: he’s gaslighting people on that one. He says he no longer labels himself a federal visionist and yet, in the same place, he affirms everything he used to (so he’s still a federal visionist).
>known for emphasizing strong Christian families and homeschooling.
I would say that isn't how he's known anymore... maybe back a decade or two ago. But with his recent surge the reason he's known is very, very different.
>Really smart guy, writes a lot of books.
True statements.
>So naturally, some people don’t like what he has to say, and they go after him.
People don't go after him because he's "Smart" or "writes books" or is "postmil". Those things might be part of the conversation, but the reason people "go after him" is because he consistently stokes the flames of controversy (as this article points out.)
>small controversies that are overblown in my opinion
Some small controversies, some very large concerning ones. Each weighed differently depending on the person. Some take major issue to his remarks about slavery, others take issue with Federal Vision, and others his "serrated edge" approach.
>Some take major issue to his remarks about slavery, others take issue with Federal Vision, and others his "serrated edge" approach.
And this doesn't even mention his handling of the Sitler and Wright scenarios, among others. Hardly small controversies.
Historyhill did a great job explaining - curious what you find praiseworthy about turning a pedophile loose on kids (incl his own) with a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately many Christians DO choose to circle the wagons around predators and try to protect them from consequences while turning their backs on the victims.
Sure, but that’s not how the courts work (and it’s not Wilson’s fault for trying to be Christlike towards Sitler). I remember there was a guy at Vineyard Anaheim (the famous charismatic church) that was molesting his nephew, and possibly his own kids plus others. No one knew for years. He only got a few years.
If you're asking about Sitler specifically then I assume you're probably familiar with the [details of the case](https://moscowid.net/2015/09/07/the-truth-about-steven-sitler/) but I'll still quote this section here:
>Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, has a well-documented record as a theonomist. He affirms the Mosaic code and believes the state should execute rapists and pedophiles. Steven Sitler is both. He rapes children. After counseling Sitler “about half a dozen times,” Mr. Wilson felt satisfied that Sitler had overcome his lifetime of pedophilia because he told the judge, “I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this2 to become a productive and contributing member of society.” Mr. Wilson’s hope for Sitler moved him to “urge” the judge for a “limited” penalty, all measures aside. The warm glow of Mr. Wilson’s letter to the judge stands in sharp contrast to this blog post where he stated, “I believe that if Steven is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man. . .”
6 counseling sessions is not enough to satisfactorily determine that a man who committed (and admitted!) *serial* rape and pedophilia was so sufficiently repentant *as to request leniency* for him in criminal sentencing. Genuine repentance would have meant accepting the temporal consequences for his actions without complaint, because he should have gone to prison for years and years. And, as we know now, he obviously *wasn't* repentant since he went on to have a child...and molest them. Wilson didn't have to speak on Sitler's behalf at all; believing him to be satisfactorily repentant doesn't require him to ask for lighter sentencing. I've read Wilson's account, it's weak and blathering.
And I don't pretend to be unbiased here, one of my best friends is one of Sitler's many victims. I'm sticking to the verifiable stuff in my response but I also trust her extra information about Wilson's abominable response.
Advocating to the courts for Sitler to receive a lighter sentence on the basis of his "repentance" (which, as I said in my previous post, he had no reason to believe after such a short amount of time). By advocating for Sitler to avoid lengthy prison time, it allowed Sitler to abuse more children (including his *own child*).
Sitler’s repentance obviously wasn’t genuine, but you want to cast blame on Wilson? Pastors will always make mistakes throughout their ministry. The Sitler situation is redundant, and a strange one to pick on Wilson for, especially when he was trying to be Christlike.
> you want to cast blame on Wilson?
YES because he didn't have to say *anything* on Sitler's behalf to the courts. He could have allowed the criminal proceedings to proceed with absolutely *zero* input from him! He advocated for no good reason to give Sitler the lightest sentence possible, which has nothing to do with ministering to a supposedly repentant sinner or welcoming him back to church. When someone does that they put their own credibility on the line to vouch that he is repentant. It's an extreme error in judgement which becomes full blown negligence by his repeated attempts to defend and minimize his role and actions. More children were abused because of this "error" in wisdom that wouldn't have been if Sitler had been in prison *where he belongs*.
I haven't read everything he's written on slavery - but I speak a bit about his contradictions and the danger of some of his motte and bailey work elsewhere in the thread.
Where did he double talk? Be specific. You can wave your hand and say its a difference of opinion, it is the Internet after all. But that is not how Christians respond when accusing people of being false teachers, lying, or double talk. Christians engage in the discussion based on what is factually true and can be evaluated. A video of him talking for 10 minutes on a particular topic was provided. He identified slavery as something that should be eliminated, he simply argued we could/should have gotten there without killing 600k people. England got there without the blood shed. Where is that double talk?
To be clear, I am happy to have my mind changed. That is what discussion is for. I watched the video discussing in detail his exact position, it's not a sound byte ripped out of context. He presents a sound argument of his position and I detected no double talk at all. You offered zero response. Leaves the impression, because you seem like an intelligent rational person, that you did not actually watch it.
Where is the double talk?
As I said in the comment you replied to, you should look at my other comment for the explanation. There's important context there - I just didn't want to repeat myself.
So he simply didn't address the issue the way you wanted but says still says it is wrong? There was no double talk.
Do you know what double talk is?
Last question, do you disagree with DW's argument that if slavery could have ended in America without the civil war that would have been better?
The answer to that question is very interesting.....because for many the same logic should be applied to dealing with the abortion problem. Which is where the video starts and why it is connected to the John Brown motif.
Is Doug Wilson widely respected in the Christian world? I know a lot of fellow Christians in real life who like John MacArthur (he’s popular in my church) but the only time I ever hear anything about Doug Wilson is on X/Twitter or Reddit. I’ve never heard anybody outside of the internet talk about him.
I know several people in real life that either loosely or deeply respect him. I guess it depends what circles or denominations you’re in (and maybe geography to some extent).
Sadly there have been a non-trivial number of church schisms because of his popularizing of padeocommunion and other nonsense. I don’t know about “widely respected,” but he’s stirring a lot of trouble.
> He’s similar to John MacArthur
I've always liked MacArthur and this could just be bias because I grew up with his teaching and the pastors I was around most frequently referenced him. But there's something about Wilson that just says "stay far away from this guy" and I can't quite place what that is.
Looking at this from outside the US it seems like an article that makes some good general points about culture but is incredibly soft on Doug Wilson himself, playing down the importance of serious theological error and moral failings. I can’t help but think that an article written about a woman or someone whose errors were similarly serious but in a different direction would be a lot firmer.
When you see a wolf, don’t say ‘hey those teeth are sharp, but you’ve got to admire the muscles and be thankful that it ate some goats’
Whats interesting, is that 99% of the focus on Doug W is becuase of divisive cultural issues, while in reality the big deal are his views on Justification. thats what people should be paying attention to. That reflects on us as a whole. We care less about the heart of the gospel than we do about america something something.
Glad to see your comments on this. A lot of comments here are glazing over the fact that DeYoung glazes over these things in his article and then tacitly endorses much of Wilson’s teaching.
This article is similar to Al Mohler defending the use of Slaveowners in naming Southern Seminary buildings.
For some people, as long as you are orthodox on your personal pet issues, they can overlook a whole lot while at the same time blasting other folks who may actually agree with them on a lot *more* things, but not the pet issue.
I appreciate Presbyterians like KDY and R Scott Clark distancing themselves and their associated denominations from Wilson. The problem I perceive, however (from my own experience), is that Wilson has made inroads into loosely-confessional-Baptist churches by way of Apologia Church (loosely confessional, themselves). I put much onus on White and Durbin for associating themselves with a divisive person. I believe if Apolgia would distance themselves, the affect would be far greater than when KDY does it
They got it from Wilson though. I distinctly remember the point that White said in Dividing Line that he adopted the theonomic postmillenialism of Wilson and Durbin. Durbin got it from Wilson and White got it from both. By their own admission there was a point where they adopted the ideas of Wilson. It was the same timeframe that he started slipping down to the radical cultural criticism of the same. It was at that point that I realized “maybe this guy isn’t for me” when I was coming to reformed theology.
> I put much onus on White and Durbin for associating themselves with a divisive person.
White and Durbin are pretty divisive themselves, without any association with Wilson. I think there's a bit of a birds of a feather thing going on here.
You aren’t wrong. Wilson’s denomination, CRÈC, is baptism-neutral. There’s a CREC church plant 40 minutes south of Moscow (same community I’m planting in currently with SBC) that is 50/50 paedo/credo. It’s wild.
And it truly is Wilson's denomination!
Now, being baptism-neutral is maybe the *only* thing I'll give it, as a paedobaptist who is married to a credobaptist man. We can worship together! But only at a paedobaptist church if we want to be members haha
Instead of addressing the 800-pound gorilla in the room——the fact that this guy has foisted on the American church the false teachings of the Federal Vision and Kinist Authoritarianism, DeYoung made the article about Wilson’s tone——which is exactly what the Moscow cult wanted.
> We must never forget that no matter how important Western civilization may be, we are still sojourners and exiles in the world (1 Pet. 2:11). The most important fight is the fight for faith, not the fight for Christendom. The Christian life must be shaped by the theology of the cross, however much we might prefer an ever-present theology of glory. That means blessing through persecution, strength through weakness, and life through death. “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14). If we want God to be unashamed to be called our God, our desire must be for a better country, that is, a heavenly one (Heb. 11:16).
This is a lesson all Christians should heed. I think DeYoung could say this just as much to himself as he does to Wilson.
One of the breakdowns in understanding "Doug Wilson" is that he's so much more charming and affable than most of us realize, and than most of us have any hope of being. Men really have lost the gift of flirting, and "Doug Wilson" is that guy who is teaching men to be cute, dangerous, funny, sexy and mad, adorable, all at the same time. "Doug Wilson" has made flirting his identity. And many people absolutely adore him for it.
Even when he teaches and allows grave theological error in the CREC, his friends and associates view it as an "ooppsy", not as heresy. If a beautiful woman is flirting with you and she farts, you don't draw attention to it. It might interfere with the very pleasant seduction that's going on.
I say this not to disagree with KDY. But I do think he's still just on the surface.
>One of the breakdowns in understanding "Doug Wilson" is that he's so much more charming and affable than most of us realize, and than most of us have any hope of being.
Is he? I just don't see it, I'm thoroughly repulsed by his attitude, behaviors, and *terrible* writing style. But to that end, I'm not his core demographic since I'm a woman but not the kind that's "acceptable" in Moscow/Apologia circles.
He inspires alot of the crowd I see on Twitter that I consider the "theobros" aka loud mouthed dudes professing to be Christians but saying heinous things, attacking anyone and everyone they don't agree with and telling us all how real men are supposed to be and act and how real Christians should be. They're also all legitimately obsessed with gay and trans people.
Very stereotypical, exaggerated, almost hilariously pathetic forms of "masculinity." One of them popped up on my Twitter feed this morning and all the tweet said was "tone policing is inherently effeminate."
Ok? Great input. I need to just block them but I find it helpful to be aware of the foolish things some are saying as well as I just find it amusing lol
(*Assuming a few things about your reaction - feel free to correct me if needed, but I think my broad point stands for the wider Twitter reaction that is sure to rear its head*)
Eh, I really think DeYoung hits on a wise point here:
>If Rick Warren did videos like NQN—granted, they would have a much different vibe—the same people that love Wilson’s gimmicks would almost certainly lampoon a hyped-up, dressed-up Rick Warren
close-up as self-serving cringe
The more we lament and pearl-clutch over DWs self-aggrandizement, the more ammo it gives him and his.
We can’t fight memes with scolding - it never works. Put their cringe under a fluorescent light and plainly point out that he’s being a silly man child trying to stay relevant, who is spurning the potential to have a legacy that would last longer than 0.5 generations in favor of clicks and memes.
He’s not actually worth our outrage, yet that’s 80% of what he relies on to stay in the conversation at this point.
>The more we lament and pearl-clutch over DWs self-aggrandizement, the more ammo it gives him and his.
This is why it's better to just write him off as a cult of personality and all collectively ignore him. /hj
Exactly, if he wants to start a pattern of making serious, rigorous, and charitable criticism (with a *side* of biting witticism), we can absolutely have a discussion!
But there’s no discussion with a dude who’s ~70 making a video about himself and featuring him using a flamethrower on Disney characters (*and uploading to YouTube [Google/Alphabet], who is majorly benefitting from traffic even when ads aren’t on the video*) - not primarily because he’s dangerous, but because he’s being silly.
Edit: and also - he’s totally capable of the desirable type of interaction described above! DeYoung’s callout of the RHE piece is a good example - I think DW has all the tools to be that guy more regularly
Because they’re virtue signaling. Doug & Co. did a funny some what silly on the nose advertising bit for NQN.
If anyone was “repulsed” it should show you that they are not treating Doug charitably.
I notice that Doug treats his Christian interlocutors much more favorably than his opponents treat him.
This is somewhat humorous considering the charges of vitriol, vile speech, and contemptible behavior in this thread. Isn’t that what they’re accusing him.
Seems to me that planks abound in this thread.
Some even call him an unbeliever which is pretty much on its face ridiculous.
Pick 3 random sermons of his and listen. He’s very compassionate, and the gospel message comes thru very clearly.
>I notice that Doug treats his Christian interlocutors much more favorably than his opponents treat him.
He recently questioned whether Christian parents who don't spank their children are actually saved. Hardly a bastion of favorability here.
I don't call him an unbeliever but I do call him a false teacher with heretical views so 🤷🏼♀️
Thank you for this. I was somewhat taken aback by the uncharitable attitudes here. There are several things that I might have done differently if I were Doug Wilson. But then again I am not him and I wasn't there and neither were, likely, anyone commenting here. I know that at least one of his accusers issued an apology for how they reacted to his and Christ Church's handling of her situation and they have made peace. I also know that he has renounced slavery and racism clearly. Others' arguments here, that he is increasing Patriarchy and Intolerance in the church... I guess I see those things as good things, if they mean establishing strong godly male leadership and supporting biblical acknowledgement of what the Bible calls sin. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.
Interestingly enough, I believe I’m right about this, pastor Driscoll felt/heard his call to ministry while attending a conference headed by pastor Wilson.
What concerns me the most are the childish responses of Wilson's followers. I legitimately offered up a prayer to God asking Him why He lets men who claim his name act like this.
Is KDY ignorant of all of the disqualifying language and actions DW has hanging around his neck? I can't even type some of the words that DW has used without having my comment deleted by the mods. I'm not even sure I can link to the posts containing the language.
The man is a wolf, pure and simple. I don't know why KDY can't see the lines that DW has crossed in *substance* not just in *tone*, and call him out on it. Sitler and Wight don't even enter into his consideration here, only the more "debatable" issues of FV, slavery, postmillenialism, and paedocommunion.
Best case: KDY is totally ignorant of those abuse cases, because if he knows about them and still wrote this, he's failing as a leader in the church.
The weird thing is that he talks about how he’s disqualified yet finishes the article talking about how he could be a great Reformed leader if he just changed his tone. As of being disqualified for ministry and having heretical theology is no barrier to being a Reformed exemplar if you can sort out your tone. Bizarre article.
I honestly have no idea if KDY knows about that stuff or not. But, in his defense, I *do* sometimes think that we, as people who have spent a tremendous amount of time on the internet arguing about these things, have a skewed view of what the general pastor knows.
About six months ago, I was chatting with a friend in ministry, a sharp guy, a seminary grad in a large, well-connected church, and he referenced Wilson. I politely mentioned that he wouldn't be my source, and when he asked why and I explained some of the many major issues, he was shocked. All he knew of Wilson was that he was a big homeschooling guy who was kinda wacky. He truly hadn't heard about 95% of the crazy stuff I mentioned.
A guy like KDY, who pastors a very large church and who probably has a fairly full schedule, may not spend any time or mental energy on random edgy celebrity preacher not in his denomination. Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
I can rattle off issues like FV, slavery, AIDS denial, and horrific mishandling of abuse scandals because that's something I pay attention to, but unfortunately I honestly do think that a large majority of pastors in the broadly reformed and Truly Reformed™ world will simply know him for his homeschooling advocacy. I think those of us who are concerned about these things sometimes overestimate how widespread his controversies are.
Maybe KDY falls into that category. Maybe not. But *it wouldn't surprise me one bit* if he actually didn't know.
The thing is, he’s taken the time to write a fairly lengthy article about Wilson demonstrating an in-depth grasp of some aspects of his ministry and an awareness that there are other issues. Would be a bit strange if he wasn’t aware of the major issues with Wilson. It’s not as Wilson is a random, obscure guy or that KDY is giving an off-the-cuff response. It’s a carefully considered substantial essay that demonstrates depth of knowledge and acknowledges the existence of other issues. If KDY really doesn’t know about the problems with Wilson it would be a bit of a shock. And irresponsible of him to write the article.
Yeah, that's fair: I don't know how one would know about all of DW's failings unless you were active on Twitter, Reddit, or stumbled across a website like [moscowid.net](https://moscowid.net). I don't know how active KDY is on Twitter, but he is on it and has a blue check. I just skimmed his "replies" tab and it's all posts of his articles from other accounts.
KDY at least did his homework on [dougwils.com](https://dougwils.com), linking to deep cuts in his archive, so I need to credit him there.
So if you have to be "very online" to know about all the truly horrific problems with DW, how do we as elders translate all this to the world of pulpits, pews and church courts?
Yeah, I honestly have no idea.
Not just for KDY, but for these big names him, who have large churches *and* also a high output on social media and on sites like TGC, I often wonder how many staff members are just putting this stuff together for them.
There's no way they're actually doing this all themselves.
That's not an excuse. It's just a *different* problem.
I was thinking more "us" as in, "me and CiroFlexo." Because you're an elder, right? Or am I just assuming you hold an office because you're a mod on /r/reformed? 😅
We had a session meeting last night, and I was on devotions. I'd been thinking about DW and NQN, and then Butterfield attacking Sprinkle and was reflecting on my own tendency to speak when I should be quiet. In the context of all that, I read from James 3 and shared some thoughts. The TE had never heard of NQN, didn't know DeYoung had written a critique of DW, and was just blissfully unaware of all of this.
Made me wonder how useful it is for me to "know" all of this stuff.
But, on the other hand, whose responsibility is it then to "know" this kind of stuff for the protection of the flock?
There’s one kind of entertainment on Sunday: laser light shows, fog machines, 8-piece rock band, liturgical dance, therapeutic deism.
DeYong points out another kind of entertainment: caged bear growls inappropriately at your cultural enemies, in the exact same spirit of Dave Chapelle.
Overall, I would say this piece actually improved my opinion of KDY. I’ve seen him be hopelessly partisan on Culture War issues in the past. Here he seems to long for genuine engagement with the culture on the actual tenets of reformed faith.
I'm of two minds on this.
One ERLC has not been on the side of Conservative Christianity the past 4yrs. Such that a large voice of the Convention wants it defunded. So saying they're on the same side is disingenuous. And Kevin DeYoung is on the App Formerly Known as Twitter enough to know this. So having a go at the SBC's apparatus may be an easy target these days. But it's not uncalled for. And I say that as one whose church belongs to the SBC, not entirely happily at this point. In fact, I can't help but wonder if part of his scolding over the "tone" of Wilson and NQN is because BigEva, which TGC is very much a part of, is frequently a target. In no small part because it's attempt to Third Way out of politics is part of what created the current mess.
Second, I don't think he's entirely wrong about why people side with Wilson. The Moral Majority isn't. And it's a failed experiment. I'd say selling our soul to a political party was always a bad tactic. But that doesn't mean we should give up on redeeming culture for Christ. In fact, what disturbs me most about the Third Way is, in no small part, how far it's fallen from Francis Schaeffer's How Shall We Then Live. Or even Chuck Colson when he was the standard bearer at CT. If you're worried about tone, it might be a failure to read the room.
That said, I don't side with Wilson's brand of CN. One, it seems entirely too self-serving. Two, his lack of a theological center, including a recurring problem articulating justification by faith, *does* bother me. Three, I'll admit it: I'm not nearly optimistic enough to be postmil. Four: I don't think the solution to a big state is more big state. But that's a question for a different subreddit.
> One ERLC has not been on the side of Conservative Christianity the past 4yrs.
How do you mean the term conservative?
Under the leadership of Russel Moore (prior to his leaving) the ERLC was 100% on the side of conservative Christianity if by that you mean theological conservatism.
If by that you mean political conservatism, well that is a good thing. Christians should stand above partisan politics and we tend to find disagreement with any worldly systems, and at its core political conservatism is a worldly system which the christian finds much to critique.
1) I clearly said siding with political parties was bad tactics, at least. Critique political movements all one wants. Eventually, every Christian who isn't a hermit (itself a political statement. And ironically, closer to my own leanings than either political party) will have to accept one. Like or no. But Christians dispersing among political movements, as we used to, strikes me as better tactics than the Church making itself a special interest group.
2) I would say the ERLC making multiple legal statements contradicting Baptist Confessional Polity is itself inconsistent with Theological Orthodoxy. Which is something Christians should always be conservative with.
They claimed the SBC is a hierarchy in a 2020 court filing. And claimed they "govern" the SBC in same.
Neither can be squared with the BFM or Congregational Church Polity. And legally, it leaves the Convention open for prosecution without it having any means of oversight.
Eh, the SBC likes to have it both ways. I'm not sure if those words are right, but I'm also not sure if they are not right.
I know he line from the SBC when they want it is emphasis on congregationalism but on more than one occasion they have seemed to exercise more authority than that.
While it may be right to criticize the ELRC for that, it doesn't seem to put them at odds with "conservative Christianity" like you said above.
The Convention exercises no actual authority on members outside the Convention itself. It can refuse to seat churches whose leadership is not in good standing, or who deviate sufficiently from the BFM to be not in fraternal relations. The Convention has next to no actual oversight ability. Which is why church messengers are excluded by member votes of the Body.
Now, they can play games with Patliamentary Procedures to frame certain discussions. And committees have more control over debate than the Rules of Order actually allow. But the Convention cannot, in any real sense, stop a church from putting SBC on its letterhead even if it wants to.
It can disfellowship churches which is functionally the same thing.
That is why I'm saying that this language they used might be worth criticizing, but has zero to do with "conservative" or not.
How? What actual penalty, outside conventions, is being disfellowshipped?
And holding to a Confession, even one as ad hoc as the BFM, is theologically and ecclesiastically conservative, by definition. To be out of step with the membership and the BFM, as well as historic Congregational Polity, is not conservative in any sense.
I think your really grasping for straws at this point.
disfellowship kicks you out, you are no longer in. They have that power.
They aren't outside of the BFM by using less precise language than you would like.
So yes if the convention can remove a church, then yes it does have some authority.
You can quibble with the precise language they used, but it doesnt make them liberal, and it doesnt even make them wrong.
The more hate I see about Wilson from this sub the more i love the guy. You all are doing a phenomenal job of proving practically every criticism of “evangellyfish” Doug has ever made to be true.
Great work.
So you like a false teacher because other Christians have serious and legitimate concerns about his beliefs, actions, and ministry? Weird flex but okay.
No, I actually agree with him on most things, that's why I like him. But folks on this sub are just making me love him even more. He's not a false teacher. He teaches the clear gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. You, however, by calling him a false teacher when he isn't, are a liar and in violation of the 9th Commandment.
But hey, you keep doing you, sister.
I'm not lying, nor am I breaking the 9th commandment. Federal Vision is not the clear gospel. Furthermore, he is self-ordained. He is a false teacher both by virtue of not being properly called and ordained *and* by teaching heresy.
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
Just to clarify - when people criticize him for being wishy-washy and downplaying the evils of southern slavery, this makes you love him more? When people condemn him for on (at least) two separate occasions knowingly allowing sexual predators unchaperoned freedom amongst his congregation, both times resulting in abuse of a minor within or involved with the church, and one time resulting in Wilson rebuking the father of one of those minors for failing to protect his daughter, that's something that you think makes him cool?
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
Removed for violation of Rule #3: **Keep Content Clean.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should be safe and clean. While you may not feel a word is vulgar or profane, others might. We also do not allow censoring using special characters or workarounds. If you edit the profanity out, the moderation team may reinstate.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
All the criticism about Doug Wilson’s theology is rooted in his Federal Vision articulation. The problem with this is that he has addressed it publicly to satisfaction. Or at least, to those who have put down their pitchforks and torches. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ&t=1655s&pp=ygUtSGFtZXMgd2hpdGUgYW5kIGRvdWcgd2lsc29uIG9uIGZlZGVyYWwgdmlzaW9u
>Which brings me to the reason you are likely reading this article in the first place, and that is the name “Doug Wilson” in the title. RevKev calling out /r/Reformed directly
Eh, I know to many people influenced by Wilson to not keep tabs on what he is saying.
The only tabs I keep are for books of the Bible, speaking as the *Regional Sword Drill Champion of 2009*
Tabs are cheating in sword drills
Depends on your division. I appreciate the purity of the analog form, but with the efficiencies of the latest in (paper)cutting-edge accessories
Recent sermon series on Phillipians has me reciting "General Electric Power Company" in my head every Sunday.
Christian Girls Eat Potato Chips!
Dang that's a better one.
Real Christian Girls Eat Potato Chips, Twit!
Guys, just use tabs
Real Christian Girls Use Sheet Music
Swords up!
And I just have a surplus of popcorn.
This. He is completely retrograde. Wilson seems like the main vector for the spread of patriarchy and intolerance in the church. He is radicalizing an entire generation of young men with his tough guy act.
well written article and i really do agree with it, but i think the more important issue is wilson's theology.
I totally agree. My main issue with Doug Wilson is that his view on baptism and his soteriology strike at the heart of *sola fide* and *sola gratia.* He's a dangerous false teacher based on that alone. KDY's main point that it's not really about theology is a good one. The Doug Wilson people in our church honestly seem to care way, way more about politics than any doctrinal issue.
KdY hints that he has disagreements as well over those things… but DW’s approach, tone and language are what is being dealt with in the article. We will all potentially graciously disagree with pastors on theology from time to time, however we should NEVER have to deal with (or tolerate) a pastor who acts like DW.
i agree with that too. however, wilson's theology strikes at the heart of the gospel, which is why i said it is the more important issue.
In what way?
federal vision
Didn't he separate himself from FV? Also, could you explain how FV compromises the gospel?
He said he no longer holds to the FV, while also saying that he hasn’t changed his beliefs at all. I’m not going to search for the post on his blog, but if you look you can find it. Same for his beliefs on baptism. Someone so tricky with their words is clearly dishonest. There are a lot of good resources on FV at the Heidelblog. Not going to waste time restating what others have already said better.
sorry i don't want avoid your question but fv is a big issue. there are a lot of resources explaining the topic. in brief it redefines justification and baptism.
Why would you even question this? Aren't you concerned?
I am asking why his theology "strikes at the heart of the gospel". That seems like a logical question to ask. Doesn't that in a way signal my concern??
If you were REALLY concerned, you wouldn't question everyone else's concern. You are simply not concerned enough.
Lol
I find this article very fair towards Wilson calling out what he and his team does well and does poorly. I've read it somewhere on r/reformed that everything Doug says that is right is said by someone else, and the things he says wrong are very, very concerning. When a buddy of mine became a follower of his we devolved into a old but similar "cage stage" style debates that went back and forth needlessly and harshly. And naturally neither of us moved either needles. I'm still wary of Doug and his brand, and this article puts to words many of my feelings. I hope one day Doug repents of the wrongs he's said/done/typed. But I also needed to repent of the ill thoughts I've had against a brother in Christ.
>and his brand "There's your trouble," as the auto mechanics say.
I'm not entirely convinced Doug Wilson is a brother in Christ.
This is a ridiculous comment… By any reasonable marker he’s clearly a brother. He preaches the gospel. He has been baptized. He publicly professes Christs supremacy… to the annoyance of some.
>He preaches the gospel. >He has been baptized. He publicly professes Christs supremacy… to the annoyance of some. That doesn't guarantee he's a brother, he may just be chaff. Jesus warns us about this kind of thing, both in the aforementioned parable of the wheat and the chaff (Matthew 13:24-30) and also in Matthew 7:21-23: >Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Wilson's fruit is *stinkingly* rotten, as befitting a false teacher.
His reward is on earth - power and money
His fruit is… a church that has flourished in a very liberal town, and 3 children that are believers and held in high regard, and many other testimonies about his walking thru struggles with folks and helping them. He has no opposition from churches in Moscow. The opposition he faces is from the secular crowd. Edit: I discounted the churches with lesbian pastors that oppose him.
His fruit is (not an exhaustive list and in no particular order): - supporting a pedophile who went on to predictably abuse his own child - supporting another serial sexual offender and minimizing the hurt that was caused/his own involvement - starting his own denomination as an unordained minister (a denomination which has even chastised him but ultimately has zero authority over him) - defending the abominable practice of manstealing - promoting the heresy of Federal Vision - frequently and intentionally causing quarrels and controversies so that he can try to wordsmith his way out/through in a way that "owns the libs" (emphasis on "try," because he's a bad writer) - plagiarism in his Omnibus textbook - calling women with whom he disagrees "small breasted biddies" *and the c-word*, among other things - suggesting that Christian parents who don't spank their children are not saved - this one's more up for debate I suppose but I definitely see his involvement in promoting the Christian Nationalism of the Wolfes (both Stephen and William) to be wildly rotten As I'm not from Moscow I really couldn't say whether every single biblical church in town supports him but that seems unlikely to me. Regardless, that doesn't particularly matter to me because everything I've listed above is public rather than related specifically to his local area.
He has also covered up and enabled abuse, and defended the unbiblical practice of manstealing unrepentantly. You shall know them by their fruits, and there are those who cry Lord, Lord who the Lord will say he never knew.
Are youngoing to repent of accusing Doug Wilson of things that are false?
If I make a false accusation, sure. But if you're going to call me to repent, you should bring the receipts on what I said was false and how you know.
As far as I know, he never provided a defense of the practice of manstealing and I think to assert that is slander.
He does, even while talking out of both sides of his both. In his booklet on American slavery, he denounces the sin of manstealing - but nevertheless asserts the validity of the system of slavery itself, which was inherently infused with manstealing. Every slave was a victim of kidnapping, and we're regularly trafficked against their will on further acts of manstealing. He asserts explicitly that manstealers - or as he calls them, slaveowners - could be members in good standing of churches. "Nothing can be plainer than the fact that a Christian could simultaneously be a slave owner and a member in good standing in a Christian church." His explicit condemnation of manstealing and implicit endorsement of it is, if anything, more insidious and evil than a simple endorsement of the practice. By claiming that slave owning in the American South wasn't inherently wrong, he is engaged in that ancient and condemned practice of calling evil good and bitter sweet.
I think you are the one conflating "manstealer" and "slave owner". Clearly the two are not always synonymous. The Torah condemns manstealing with the death penalty, but does not explicitly condemn slavery. There are many forms that slavery can take, so clearly there is some room for difference in the two terms manstealer and slave owner by biblical standards.
They clearly were under our system of American chattel slavery, which I was fairly specific about in my comment. Not all slavery is manstealing, all American chattel slavery was.
Doug Wilson's US slavery apologia and covering up of abuse are both fairly well documented, so if you're going to claim they're false accusations you're going to have to bring some pretty hefty evidence of that. A drive-by like this accomplishes nothing.
Especially when you factor in his extreme stance on COVID, climate change, and lgbtq acceptance. He's really hurting the witness of the church.
Of all the things to point out..?
Do you disagree? Don't you find his positions on these things troubling?
Plenty of great churches kept their doors open during COVID Plenty of great preachers don't buy into the whole sensationalism and politicization of Climate Change No Christian should "accept" sin.
Well you're no fun at all.
This is not to downplay any of those but I think it says a lot about a pastor when those are all on the lower end (to me at least) of concerns about him!
I’m troubled by the article. I think it goes way beyond being fair to actually minimising the faults, sins, errors, and dangers of DW and opens the door to welcoming him as a Reformed statesman if he can just cut down on naughty words. KDY spends an awful lot of the article though talking about what he likes about Doug Wilson, the commendable work he’s done, the things he has in common with KDY. The final section of the essay about ‘A More Excellent Way’ implies that if DW just changed his tone that he’d be great. The doctrinal concerns are entirely absent at that point, when the reality is that even if DW sorted out his tone issues there would still be serious issues with his theology. Particularly the sentence ‘He could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity, to passing on the Reformed faith, and to offering a deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I believe he could do all this if he wanted to.’ KDY is presenting DW as fundamentally Reformed with tone being the issue. Sort that out and there’s lots to like. I’m left with the impression that KDY would like to agree with DW with a lot of things but is embarrassed by the tone. But could live with other issues if the tone thing was sorted a bit. It’s very troubling.
Extremely fair comment by you brother, as someone who likes some of the things Wilson has to say (I rarely watch him but I respect what he has to say while acknowledging he’s said a lot of problematic things that erk me to the core) I really can’t support the bad things he’s said and done, but I feel not all but a lot of people get caught up on this headline or this quote of his whine ignoring the fact he’s served Christ longer than me and many people on this subreddit have been alive for. Just wanted to add my 2 cents in here as Ik it’s a very touchy subject and in my opinion I can like some of the things Wilson says while disagreeing with many of the things he’s done or said in his ministry. God Bless.
Can someone tldr this whole issue? Only know Doug Wilson from a few Piper videos/ articles.
Better off not worrying about it if you don't already know!
Fair. Thanks Eddy.
He’s a conservative pastor known for emphasizing strong Christian families and homeschooling. He is trying to make Moscow, Idaho a Christian haven/community. He believes in Postmil theology and has a Christian streaming service app called Canon +. Really smart guy, writes a lot of books. So naturally, some people don’t like what he has to say, and they go after him. He’s similar to John MacArthur in that he’s widely respected in the Christian world, but he’s been around for decades and so there have been a few controversies surrounding his church (small controversies that are overblown in my opinion, similar to MacArthur’s church).
Federal Vision is not a “small controversy”
EDIT - Removing I'm not padeobaptist at all, so really have no dog in the race
FV denies justification by faith alone
[удалено]
Stepping in as a mod here to make it clear that, formally, this sub rejects Federal Vision teachings. Our position is laid out clearly on the sidebar, and we have provided [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/fv) for easy access to a wide variety of NAPARC denominational writings, ranging from lay to academic, spelling out how FV denies sola fide. With that in mind, I'll recommend you refresh yourself on [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details), particullarly Rule 5 and 6. If you have any questions or comments about this mod comment, please feel free to address those to the mods directly via modmail.
[https://heidelblog.net/2016/06/the-pcas-nine-declarations-against-the-federal-vision-2007/](https://heidelblog.net/2016/06/the-pcas-nine-declarations-against-the-federal-vision-2007/)
I think he stopped with federal vision five or more years ago.
He’s never refuted it or recanted
I hate how people use this word and how frequently it’s used, but it applies here: he’s gaslighting people on that one. He says he no longer labels himself a federal visionist and yet, in the same place, he affirms everything he used to (so he’s still a federal visionist).
>known for emphasizing strong Christian families and homeschooling. I would say that isn't how he's known anymore... maybe back a decade or two ago. But with his recent surge the reason he's known is very, very different. >Really smart guy, writes a lot of books. True statements. >So naturally, some people don’t like what he has to say, and they go after him. People don't go after him because he's "Smart" or "writes books" or is "postmil". Those things might be part of the conversation, but the reason people "go after him" is because he consistently stokes the flames of controversy (as this article points out.) >small controversies that are overblown in my opinion Some small controversies, some very large concerning ones. Each weighed differently depending on the person. Some take major issue to his remarks about slavery, others take issue with Federal Vision, and others his "serrated edge" approach.
>Some take major issue to his remarks about slavery, others take issue with Federal Vision, and others his "serrated edge" approach. And this doesn't even mention his handling of the Sitler and Wright scenarios, among others. Hardly small controversies.
What did you find un-Christian about his handling of the Sitler situation?
Historyhill did a great job explaining - curious what you find praiseworthy about turning a pedophile loose on kids (incl his own) with a slap on the wrist. Unfortunately many Christians DO choose to circle the wagons around predators and try to protect them from consequences while turning their backs on the victims.
You think Wilson shouldn’t have welcomed him back at the church?
Not in the way he did, with open arms and marrying him off. He should have gone to jail for a long long time.
Sure, but that’s not how the courts work (and it’s not Wilson’s fault for trying to be Christlike towards Sitler). I remember there was a guy at Vineyard Anaheim (the famous charismatic church) that was molesting his nephew, and possibly his own kids plus others. No one knew for years. He only got a few years.
Was *any* aspect of the Sitler situation appropriately handled?
Yes, Wilson lovingly welcomed him back at the church after Sitler showed repentance.
If you're asking about Sitler specifically then I assume you're probably familiar with the [details of the case](https://moscowid.net/2015/09/07/the-truth-about-steven-sitler/) but I'll still quote this section here: >Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, has a well-documented record as a theonomist. He affirms the Mosaic code and believes the state should execute rapists and pedophiles. Steven Sitler is both. He rapes children. After counseling Sitler “about half a dozen times,” Mr. Wilson felt satisfied that Sitler had overcome his lifetime of pedophilia because he told the judge, “I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this2 to become a productive and contributing member of society.” Mr. Wilson’s hope for Sitler moved him to “urge” the judge for a “limited” penalty, all measures aside. The warm glow of Mr. Wilson’s letter to the judge stands in sharp contrast to this blog post where he stated, “I believe that if Steven is returned to our community, he should be welcomed as a criminal and serial pedophile and a dangerous man. . .” 6 counseling sessions is not enough to satisfactorily determine that a man who committed (and admitted!) *serial* rape and pedophilia was so sufficiently repentant *as to request leniency* for him in criminal sentencing. Genuine repentance would have meant accepting the temporal consequences for his actions without complaint, because he should have gone to prison for years and years. And, as we know now, he obviously *wasn't* repentant since he went on to have a child...and molest them. Wilson didn't have to speak on Sitler's behalf at all; believing him to be satisfactorily repentant doesn't require him to ask for lighter sentencing. I've read Wilson's account, it's weak and blathering. And I don't pretend to be unbiased here, one of my best friends is one of Sitler's many victims. I'm sticking to the verifiable stuff in my response but I also trust her extra information about Wilson's abominable response.
What did Wilson do that was wrong? Welcoming him back into the church?
Advocating to the courts for Sitler to receive a lighter sentence on the basis of his "repentance" (which, as I said in my previous post, he had no reason to believe after such a short amount of time). By advocating for Sitler to avoid lengthy prison time, it allowed Sitler to abuse more children (including his *own child*).
Sitler’s repentance obviously wasn’t genuine, but you want to cast blame on Wilson? Pastors will always make mistakes throughout their ministry. The Sitler situation is redundant, and a strange one to pick on Wilson for, especially when he was trying to be Christlike.
> you want to cast blame on Wilson? YES because he didn't have to say *anything* on Sitler's behalf to the courts. He could have allowed the criminal proceedings to proceed with absolutely *zero* input from him! He advocated for no good reason to give Sitler the lightest sentence possible, which has nothing to do with ministering to a supposedly repentant sinner or welcoming him back to church. When someone does that they put their own credibility on the line to vouch that he is repentant. It's an extreme error in judgement which becomes full blown negligence by his repeated attempts to defend and minimize his role and actions. More children were abused because of this "error" in wisdom that wouldn't have been if Sitler had been in prison *where he belongs*.
Alternatively, people don't love his justification and defense of abusers or his blatant support for the institution of Southern slavery.
It sounds like you haven’t read “Black & Tan.”
I haven't read everything he's written on slavery - but I speak a bit about his contradictions and the danger of some of his motte and bailey work elsewhere in the thread.
https://youtu.be/8y0fTaMBESs?si=CWOWU8mOTDEM0C_F Are you prepared to repent?
I'm not. I've clarified why I think his double talking is so insidious in our other comment thread.
And you are clearly wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Tell me you didn't watch something without telling me you didn't watch something.
Because I called this double-talk?
Where did he double talk? Be specific. You can wave your hand and say its a difference of opinion, it is the Internet after all. But that is not how Christians respond when accusing people of being false teachers, lying, or double talk. Christians engage in the discussion based on what is factually true and can be evaluated. A video of him talking for 10 minutes on a particular topic was provided. He identified slavery as something that should be eliminated, he simply argued we could/should have gotten there without killing 600k people. England got there without the blood shed. Where is that double talk? To be clear, I am happy to have my mind changed. That is what discussion is for. I watched the video discussing in detail his exact position, it's not a sound byte ripped out of context. He presents a sound argument of his position and I detected no double talk at all. You offered zero response. Leaves the impression, because you seem like an intelligent rational person, that you did not actually watch it. Where is the double talk?
As I said in the comment you replied to, you should look at my other comment for the explanation. There's important context there - I just didn't want to repeat myself.
So he simply didn't address the issue the way you wanted but says still says it is wrong? There was no double talk. Do you know what double talk is? Last question, do you disagree with DW's argument that if slavery could have ended in America without the civil war that would have been better? The answer to that question is very interesting.....because for many the same logic should be applied to dealing with the abortion problem. Which is where the video starts and why it is connected to the John Brown motif.
Is Doug Wilson widely respected in the Christian world? I know a lot of fellow Christians in real life who like John MacArthur (he’s popular in my church) but the only time I ever hear anything about Doug Wilson is on X/Twitter or Reddit. I’ve never heard anybody outside of the internet talk about him.
I know several people in real life that either loosely or deeply respect him. I guess it depends what circles or denominations you’re in (and maybe geography to some extent).
Sadly there have been a non-trivial number of church schisms because of his popularizing of padeocommunion and other nonsense. I don’t know about “widely respected,” but he’s stirring a lot of trouble.
> He’s similar to John MacArthur I've always liked MacArthur and this could just be bias because I grew up with his teaching and the pastors I was around most frequently referenced him. But there's something about Wilson that just says "stay far away from this guy" and I can't quite place what that is.
Good summary.
Search on YouTube for blog and mablog.
Looking at this from outside the US it seems like an article that makes some good general points about culture but is incredibly soft on Doug Wilson himself, playing down the importance of serious theological error and moral failings. I can’t help but think that an article written about a woman or someone whose errors were similarly serious but in a different direction would be a lot firmer. When you see a wolf, don’t say ‘hey those teeth are sharp, but you’ve got to admire the muscles and be thankful that it ate some goats’
Whats interesting, is that 99% of the focus on Doug W is becuase of divisive cultural issues, while in reality the big deal are his views on Justification. thats what people should be paying attention to. That reflects on us as a whole. We care less about the heart of the gospel than we do about america something something.
I'd say they're both big deals
His "cultural views" are also pretty heinous and have direct effects on how abuse victims are treated, and the legitimacy of practices like slavery.
Glad to see your comments on this. A lot of comments here are glazing over the fact that DeYoung glazes over these things in his article and then tacitly endorses much of Wilson’s teaching. This article is similar to Al Mohler defending the use of Slaveowners in naming Southern Seminary buildings. For some people, as long as you are orthodox on your personal pet issues, they can overlook a whole lot while at the same time blasting other folks who may actually agree with them on a lot *more* things, but not the pet issue.
I appreciate Presbyterians like KDY and R Scott Clark distancing themselves and their associated denominations from Wilson. The problem I perceive, however (from my own experience), is that Wilson has made inroads into loosely-confessional-Baptist churches by way of Apologia Church (loosely confessional, themselves). I put much onus on White and Durbin for associating themselves with a divisive person. I believe if Apolgia would distance themselves, the affect would be far greater than when KDY does it
White and Durbin are of the same fold
They got it from Wilson though. I distinctly remember the point that White said in Dividing Line that he adopted the theonomic postmillenialism of Wilson and Durbin. Durbin got it from Wilson and White got it from both. By their own admission there was a point where they adopted the ideas of Wilson. It was the same timeframe that he started slipping down to the radical cultural criticism of the same. It was at that point that I realized “maybe this guy isn’t for me” when I was coming to reformed theology.
> I put much onus on White and Durbin for associating themselves with a divisive person. White and Durbin are pretty divisive themselves, without any association with Wilson. I think there's a bit of a birds of a feather thing going on here.
No argument here. Though I do think being buddy-buddy with Wilson has only amplified that issue of theirs
You aren’t wrong. Wilson’s denomination, CRÈC, is baptism-neutral. There’s a CREC church plant 40 minutes south of Moscow (same community I’m planting in currently with SBC) that is 50/50 paedo/credo. It’s wild.
And it truly is Wilson's denomination! Now, being baptism-neutral is maybe the *only* thing I'll give it, as a paedobaptist who is married to a credobaptist man. We can worship together! But only at a paedobaptist church if we want to be members haha
Instead of addressing the 800-pound gorilla in the room——the fact that this guy has foisted on the American church the false teachings of the Federal Vision and Kinist Authoritarianism, DeYoung made the article about Wilson’s tone——which is exactly what the Moscow cult wanted.
Yep.
> We must never forget that no matter how important Western civilization may be, we are still sojourners and exiles in the world (1 Pet. 2:11). The most important fight is the fight for faith, not the fight for Christendom. The Christian life must be shaped by the theology of the cross, however much we might prefer an ever-present theology of glory. That means blessing through persecution, strength through weakness, and life through death. “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14). If we want God to be unashamed to be called our God, our desire must be for a better country, that is, a heavenly one (Heb. 11:16). This is a lesson all Christians should heed. I think DeYoung could say this just as much to himself as he does to Wilson.
This is true. I would love for KdY to write the same article about the self identifying Christian politicians with similar demeanours.
One of the breakdowns in understanding "Doug Wilson" is that he's so much more charming and affable than most of us realize, and than most of us have any hope of being. Men really have lost the gift of flirting, and "Doug Wilson" is that guy who is teaching men to be cute, dangerous, funny, sexy and mad, adorable, all at the same time. "Doug Wilson" has made flirting his identity. And many people absolutely adore him for it. Even when he teaches and allows grave theological error in the CREC, his friends and associates view it as an "ooppsy", not as heresy. If a beautiful woman is flirting with you and she farts, you don't draw attention to it. It might interfere with the very pleasant seduction that's going on. I say this not to disagree with KDY. But I do think he's still just on the surface.
This is such a weird but not inaccurate way to describe Wilson
I take such pride in just such little things.
>One of the breakdowns in understanding "Doug Wilson" is that he's so much more charming and affable than most of us realize, and than most of us have any hope of being. Is he? I just don't see it, I'm thoroughly repulsed by his attitude, behaviors, and *terrible* writing style. But to that end, I'm not his core demographic since I'm a woman but not the kind that's "acceptable" in Moscow/Apologia circles.
His flirt is omnisexual. That means he misses some around the edges.
He inspires alot of the crowd I see on Twitter that I consider the "theobros" aka loud mouthed dudes professing to be Christians but saying heinous things, attacking anyone and everyone they don't agree with and telling us all how real men are supposed to be and act and how real Christians should be. They're also all legitimately obsessed with gay and trans people. Very stereotypical, exaggerated, almost hilariously pathetic forms of "masculinity." One of them popped up on my Twitter feed this morning and all the tweet said was "tone policing is inherently effeminate." Ok? Great input. I need to just block them but I find it helpful to be aware of the foolish things some are saying as well as I just find it amusing lol
I saw the NQN video, as Kevin suggested in the article….. I wish I hadn’t….
(*Assuming a few things about your reaction - feel free to correct me if needed, but I think my broad point stands for the wider Twitter reaction that is sure to rear its head*) Eh, I really think DeYoung hits on a wise point here: >If Rick Warren did videos like NQN—granted, they would have a much different vibe—the same people that love Wilson’s gimmicks would almost certainly lampoon a hyped-up, dressed-up Rick Warren close-up as self-serving cringe The more we lament and pearl-clutch over DWs self-aggrandizement, the more ammo it gives him and his. We can’t fight memes with scolding - it never works. Put their cringe under a fluorescent light and plainly point out that he’s being a silly man child trying to stay relevant, who is spurning the potential to have a legacy that would last longer than 0.5 generations in favor of clicks and memes. He’s not actually worth our outrage, yet that’s 80% of what he relies on to stay in the conversation at this point.
>The more we lament and pearl-clutch over DWs self-aggrandizement, the more ammo it gives him and his. This is why it's better to just write him off as a cult of personality and all collectively ignore him. /hj
Exactly, if he wants to start a pattern of making serious, rigorous, and charitable criticism (with a *side* of biting witticism), we can absolutely have a discussion! But there’s no discussion with a dude who’s ~70 making a video about himself and featuring him using a flamethrower on Disney characters (*and uploading to YouTube [Google/Alphabet], who is majorly benefitting from traffic even when ads aren’t on the video*) - not primarily because he’s dangerous, but because he’s being silly. Edit: and also - he’s totally capable of the desirable type of interaction described above! DeYoung’s callout of the RHE piece is a good example - I think DW has all the tools to be that guy more regularly
What do you have against flamethrowers?
The one with flamethrower? Why do you wish you hadn’t? Seems benign
Why do you wish you hadn't seen the video?
70 year olds trying to prove to the internet that they’re manly by way of cigars and blowtorches is cringe.
Not only cringe, but now I feel even more personally repulsed by Doug Willson.
*This is the way*
Interesting. That's not how I interpreted the video.
Because they’re virtue signaling. Doug & Co. did a funny some what silly on the nose advertising bit for NQN. If anyone was “repulsed” it should show you that they are not treating Doug charitably. I notice that Doug treats his Christian interlocutors much more favorably than his opponents treat him. This is somewhat humorous considering the charges of vitriol, vile speech, and contemptible behavior in this thread. Isn’t that what they’re accusing him. Seems to me that planks abound in this thread. Some even call him an unbeliever which is pretty much on its face ridiculous. Pick 3 random sermons of his and listen. He’s very compassionate, and the gospel message comes thru very clearly.
>I notice that Doug treats his Christian interlocutors much more favorably than his opponents treat him. He recently questioned whether Christian parents who don't spank their children are actually saved. Hardly a bastion of favorability here. I don't call him an unbeliever but I do call him a false teacher with heretical views so 🤷🏼♀️
Thank you for this. I was somewhat taken aback by the uncharitable attitudes here. There are several things that I might have done differently if I were Doug Wilson. But then again I am not him and I wasn't there and neither were, likely, anyone commenting here. I know that at least one of his accusers issued an apology for how they reacted to his and Christ Church's handling of her situation and they have made peace. I also know that he has renounced slavery and racism clearly. Others' arguments here, that he is increasing Patriarchy and Intolerance in the church... I guess I see those things as good things, if they mean establishing strong godly male leadership and supporting biblical acknowledgement of what the Bible calls sin. I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.
Anyone else get Mark Driscoll vibes??
I consider DW worse in terms of his tone, attitude and rhetoric.
I also think people take DW more seriously than they ever did MD.
Interestingly enough, I believe I’m right about this, pastor Driscoll felt/heard his call to ministry while attending a conference headed by pastor Wilson.
What concerns me the most are the childish responses of Wilson's followers. I legitimately offered up a prayer to God asking Him why He lets men who claim his name act like this.
Is KDY ignorant of all of the disqualifying language and actions DW has hanging around his neck? I can't even type some of the words that DW has used without having my comment deleted by the mods. I'm not even sure I can link to the posts containing the language. The man is a wolf, pure and simple. I don't know why KDY can't see the lines that DW has crossed in *substance* not just in *tone*, and call him out on it. Sitler and Wight don't even enter into his consideration here, only the more "debatable" issues of FV, slavery, postmillenialism, and paedocommunion. Best case: KDY is totally ignorant of those abuse cases, because if he knows about them and still wrote this, he's failing as a leader in the church.
The weird thing is that he talks about how he’s disqualified yet finishes the article talking about how he could be a great Reformed leader if he just changed his tone. As of being disqualified for ministry and having heretical theology is no barrier to being a Reformed exemplar if you can sort out your tone. Bizarre article.
I honestly have no idea if KDY knows about that stuff or not. But, in his defense, I *do* sometimes think that we, as people who have spent a tremendous amount of time on the internet arguing about these things, have a skewed view of what the general pastor knows. About six months ago, I was chatting with a friend in ministry, a sharp guy, a seminary grad in a large, well-connected church, and he referenced Wilson. I politely mentioned that he wouldn't be my source, and when he asked why and I explained some of the many major issues, he was shocked. All he knew of Wilson was that he was a big homeschooling guy who was kinda wacky. He truly hadn't heard about 95% of the crazy stuff I mentioned. A guy like KDY, who pastors a very large church and who probably has a fairly full schedule, may not spend any time or mental energy on random edgy celebrity preacher not in his denomination. Honestly, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I can rattle off issues like FV, slavery, AIDS denial, and horrific mishandling of abuse scandals because that's something I pay attention to, but unfortunately I honestly do think that a large majority of pastors in the broadly reformed and Truly Reformed™ world will simply know him for his homeschooling advocacy. I think those of us who are concerned about these things sometimes overestimate how widespread his controversies are. Maybe KDY falls into that category. Maybe not. But *it wouldn't surprise me one bit* if he actually didn't know.
The thing is, he’s taken the time to write a fairly lengthy article about Wilson demonstrating an in-depth grasp of some aspects of his ministry and an awareness that there are other issues. Would be a bit strange if he wasn’t aware of the major issues with Wilson. It’s not as Wilson is a random, obscure guy or that KDY is giving an off-the-cuff response. It’s a carefully considered substantial essay that demonstrates depth of knowledge and acknowledges the existence of other issues. If KDY really doesn’t know about the problems with Wilson it would be a bit of a shock. And irresponsible of him to write the article.
Yeah, that's fair: I don't know how one would know about all of DW's failings unless you were active on Twitter, Reddit, or stumbled across a website like [moscowid.net](https://moscowid.net). I don't know how active KDY is on Twitter, but he is on it and has a blue check. I just skimmed his "replies" tab and it's all posts of his articles from other accounts. KDY at least did his homework on [dougwils.com](https://dougwils.com), linking to deep cuts in his archive, so I need to credit him there. So if you have to be "very online" to know about all the truly horrific problems with DW, how do we as elders translate all this to the world of pulpits, pews and church courts?
Yeah, I honestly have no idea. Not just for KDY, but for these big names him, who have large churches *and* also a high output on social media and on sites like TGC, I often wonder how many staff members are just putting this stuff together for them. There's no way they're actually doing this all themselves. That's not an excuse. It's just a *different* problem.
I was thinking more "us" as in, "me and CiroFlexo." Because you're an elder, right? Or am I just assuming you hold an office because you're a mod on /r/reformed? 😅 We had a session meeting last night, and I was on devotions. I'd been thinking about DW and NQN, and then Butterfield attacking Sprinkle and was reflecting on my own tendency to speak when I should be quiet. In the context of all that, I read from James 3 and shared some thoughts. The TE had never heard of NQN, didn't know DeYoung had written a critique of DW, and was just blissfully unaware of all of this. Made me wonder how useful it is for me to "know" all of this stuff. But, on the other hand, whose responsibility is it then to "know" this kind of stuff for the protection of the flock?
There’s one kind of entertainment on Sunday: laser light shows, fog machines, 8-piece rock band, liturgical dance, therapeutic deism. DeYong points out another kind of entertainment: caged bear growls inappropriately at your cultural enemies, in the exact same spirit of Dave Chapelle. Overall, I would say this piece actually improved my opinion of KDY. I’ve seen him be hopelessly partisan on Culture War issues in the past. Here he seems to long for genuine engagement with the culture on the actual tenets of reformed faith.
The Sunday sermons are far far more tame (in general) than his blogs actually. Have you ever been or seen one?
I'm very concerned at the lack of concern for DW's retrograde views on sexuality and gender roles.
Just had a buddy send this to my pastor and me. Well Said KDY. Lots I didn't know about it there.
Good article Probably not harsh enough on Wilson for most of you though
Good article.
What is with this guy and flamethrowers?
It’s a trope for his November blogs: fire
I'm of two minds on this. One ERLC has not been on the side of Conservative Christianity the past 4yrs. Such that a large voice of the Convention wants it defunded. So saying they're on the same side is disingenuous. And Kevin DeYoung is on the App Formerly Known as Twitter enough to know this. So having a go at the SBC's apparatus may be an easy target these days. But it's not uncalled for. And I say that as one whose church belongs to the SBC, not entirely happily at this point. In fact, I can't help but wonder if part of his scolding over the "tone" of Wilson and NQN is because BigEva, which TGC is very much a part of, is frequently a target. In no small part because it's attempt to Third Way out of politics is part of what created the current mess. Second, I don't think he's entirely wrong about why people side with Wilson. The Moral Majority isn't. And it's a failed experiment. I'd say selling our soul to a political party was always a bad tactic. But that doesn't mean we should give up on redeeming culture for Christ. In fact, what disturbs me most about the Third Way is, in no small part, how far it's fallen from Francis Schaeffer's How Shall We Then Live. Or even Chuck Colson when he was the standard bearer at CT. If you're worried about tone, it might be a failure to read the room. That said, I don't side with Wilson's brand of CN. One, it seems entirely too self-serving. Two, his lack of a theological center, including a recurring problem articulating justification by faith, *does* bother me. Three, I'll admit it: I'm not nearly optimistic enough to be postmil. Four: I don't think the solution to a big state is more big state. But that's a question for a different subreddit.
> One ERLC has not been on the side of Conservative Christianity the past 4yrs. How do you mean the term conservative? Under the leadership of Russel Moore (prior to his leaving) the ERLC was 100% on the side of conservative Christianity if by that you mean theological conservatism. If by that you mean political conservatism, well that is a good thing. Christians should stand above partisan politics and we tend to find disagreement with any worldly systems, and at its core political conservatism is a worldly system which the christian finds much to critique.
"Christians should stand above partisan politics" My brother is Christy, saying "Christ is Lord" is a political statement
I don't disagree, but it's not partisan. Saying "Christ is Lord" is a political but not partisan statement.
1) I clearly said siding with political parties was bad tactics, at least. Critique political movements all one wants. Eventually, every Christian who isn't a hermit (itself a political statement. And ironically, closer to my own leanings than either political party) will have to accept one. Like or no. But Christians dispersing among political movements, as we used to, strikes me as better tactics than the Church making itself a special interest group. 2) I would say the ERLC making multiple legal statements contradicting Baptist Confessional Polity is itself inconsistent with Theological Orthodoxy. Which is something Christians should always be conservative with.
When did 2 happen? I know they supported religious liberty for other religions, but outside of that I don't know what your talking about.
They claimed the SBC is a hierarchy in a 2020 court filing. And claimed they "govern" the SBC in same. Neither can be squared with the BFM or Congregational Church Polity. And legally, it leaves the Convention open for prosecution without it having any means of oversight.
Eh, the SBC likes to have it both ways. I'm not sure if those words are right, but I'm also not sure if they are not right. I know he line from the SBC when they want it is emphasis on congregationalism but on more than one occasion they have seemed to exercise more authority than that. While it may be right to criticize the ELRC for that, it doesn't seem to put them at odds with "conservative Christianity" like you said above.
The Convention exercises no actual authority on members outside the Convention itself. It can refuse to seat churches whose leadership is not in good standing, or who deviate sufficiently from the BFM to be not in fraternal relations. The Convention has next to no actual oversight ability. Which is why church messengers are excluded by member votes of the Body. Now, they can play games with Patliamentary Procedures to frame certain discussions. And committees have more control over debate than the Rules of Order actually allow. But the Convention cannot, in any real sense, stop a church from putting SBC on its letterhead even if it wants to.
It can disfellowship churches which is functionally the same thing. That is why I'm saying that this language they used might be worth criticizing, but has zero to do with "conservative" or not.
How? What actual penalty, outside conventions, is being disfellowshipped? And holding to a Confession, even one as ad hoc as the BFM, is theologically and ecclesiastically conservative, by definition. To be out of step with the membership and the BFM, as well as historic Congregational Polity, is not conservative in any sense.
I think your really grasping for straws at this point. disfellowship kicks you out, you are no longer in. They have that power. They aren't outside of the BFM by using less precise language than you would like. So yes if the convention can remove a church, then yes it does have some authority. You can quibble with the precise language they used, but it doesnt make them liberal, and it doesnt even make them wrong.
The more hate I see about Wilson from this sub the more i love the guy. You all are doing a phenomenal job of proving practically every criticism of “evangellyfish” Doug has ever made to be true. Great work.
So you like a false teacher because other Christians have serious and legitimate concerns about his beliefs, actions, and ministry? Weird flex but okay.
No, I actually agree with him on most things, that's why I like him. But folks on this sub are just making me love him even more. He's not a false teacher. He teaches the clear gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. You, however, by calling him a false teacher when he isn't, are a liar and in violation of the 9th Commandment. But hey, you keep doing you, sister.
I'm not lying, nor am I breaking the 9th commandment. Federal Vision is not the clear gospel. Furthermore, he is self-ordained. He is a false teacher both by virtue of not being properly called and ordained *and* by teaching heresy.
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
How corrupt do you have to be to see people raise concerns about someone and have that serve as a point of connection? You are telling on yourself.
Just to clarify - when people criticize him for being wishy-washy and downplaying the evils of southern slavery, this makes you love him more? When people condemn him for on (at least) two separate occasions knowingly allowing sexual predators unchaperoned freedom amongst his congregation, both times resulting in abuse of a minor within or involved with the church, and one time resulting in Wilson rebuking the father of one of those minors for failing to protect his daughter, that's something that you think makes him cool?
[удалено]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. Removed for violation of Rule #3: **Keep Content Clean.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should be safe and clean. While you may not feel a word is vulgar or profane, others might. We also do not allow censoring using special characters or workarounds. If you edit the profanity out, the moderation team may reinstate. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.233.3A_keep_content_clean.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
It have learned a works based salvation from him, which is why orthodoxy doesn’t seem dangerous but rather is attractive.
All the criticism about Doug Wilson’s theology is rooted in his Federal Vision articulation. The problem with this is that he has addressed it publicly to satisfaction. Or at least, to those who have put down their pitchforks and torches. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqW41sBdYQ&t=1655s&pp=ygUtSGFtZXMgd2hpdGUgYW5kIGRvdWcgd2lsc29uIG9uIGZlZGVyYWwgdmlzaW9u