This was pretty even handed. As you said, no one handles everything perfectly. But if I had to lean one way or the other, I would rather have a pastor fearlessly address the culture and the sins in the church and occasionally step over the line rather than one who is too afraid to call things out.
I stayed away from Doug over Federal Vision controversy until 2020 when I started listening to his Blog and Mablog commentary. Have grown to love him and have learned much from him.
DW is the preacher I respect and appreciate more than any other. I don't agree with every word he says, but I don't agree with every word of any human. I listen to DW every day, at least one sermon, not just political talk. The LORD has blessed my faith, spiritual knowledge, understanding, marriage, and family through DW more than anyone else in my life. I am SICK of the irrelevance, cowardice, and effeminacy of other church leaders, including my own PCA pastor, sadly.
I love Doug Wilson. He has a pair, and he’s one of the few men in evangelicalism today who is stepping up to the plate and swinging for the fences. Most evangelical leaders are in the dugout having a tea party and plotting how they can be more ashamed of being Christian men. Long live Doug Wilson! I thank God for him.
Wow incredibly balanced and helpful take brother!!! The biggest hit home for me is how KDY perfectly encapsulates the whole “punch right, nuance left” thing. He’ll never call out the TGC/T4G crowd for their neo-marxist tendencies. And KDY considering the ERLC conservative is mind blowing to me. Great video!
So much to say on the language issue, but trying to be brief: 1. KDY owed it to his readers to engage seriously with Doug's explanation (or "defense") for his use of such language. He knew of it--he even linked it in his article--but other than that link, wrote as though it did not exist. Especially if he's saying this should disqualify Doug from ministry--which is what he's saying, though he's trying to be subtle about it--he isn't handling his concern with the care it deserves. 2. A critical difference between Driscoll and Wilson is that Driscoll was regularly profane in the pulpit (well, the stage; they were too cool for a pulpit); Wilson occasionally (rarely) uses crude language in blog posts and YT videos. Frequency and setting are both relevant. 3. As long as Eze 23:20 is in the Bible (we don't even need to get into the connotations of skubalos), you simply cannot say out of hand that the use of crude language is forbidden. You may want to put all sorts of guard rails and seat belts on it--and probably should--but you must accept that there can be a place/time/situation where such language can be appropriate. KDY fails to acknowledge this. 4. KDY greatly weakened his argument by including "boobs" among the words that, were he to use them, should remove him from ministry. That's silly, and it cheapens his argument as a whole. 5. And as Tom Buck (no defender of Doug Wilson he) pointed out, if KDY is so concerned about language, where are his pieces against TGC for their movie recommendations? It isn't _tu quoque,_ nor is it "whataboutism," to point out inconsistency. If Wilson's use of language is wrong, it's wrong. But if KDY's going to spend a substantial amount of space in a piece against him talking about his use of language, but not say word 1 about TGC's--on whose board he sits, and thus where presumably where he has some power to effect change--use or endorsement of language, that's a gross inconsistency. And it leads you to suspect that the language isn't really his concern.
25:00 - This is my #1 question in all of this. I'm sorry to admit, but I'm not interested in any of the rest of the chatter around this topic until we get clear answers an this. It's time for the DeYoung's of the world to address this issue or shut their mouths forever.
Was McArthur’s article really relevant? As far as I understand, Wilson isn’t doing what McArthur describes; he’s not imbibing the culture and mimicking it to ‘be culturally relevant’ - he’s calling out the culture (and especially parts of the church that have been hollowed out by it) with strategic shocks. He said he condemns the habitual usage of such language but thinks it can be justified to speak certain words or phrases with care and discernment in service of a more important point. I believe some mention of the crudity of Galatians 5:12 was made. If I recall correctly, I believe Wilson said that part of the point he was making is that people will react more harshly to a dirty word spoken than to the dirty deed the word describes actually being done - like how many are more angry about the meanness of calling Hamas ‘murderers’ or ‘terrorists’ than they are about Hamas turning cribs into dissecting tables and fire pits. When we would rather our brothers sow damnation than hear them say the word ‘d@mn’, it seems like good evidence that some subtle poison has been eating at our sense of perspective. Edit: I enjoyed and largely agree with the points in the video, though. Maintained perspective and was neither sycophantic nor rabid. I think your latter point was much like Wilson’s point as I understood it. If you haven’t seen it yet, what you were saying there sounds much like what is discussed in the documentary ‘Enemies Within: The Church’. Edit2: As a hypothetical illustration of the ‘word spoken vs deed done’, imagine a church where drunken parties and s3xual sin are rampant with little-to-no resulting remonstrances from the pastor and elders, but all heck breaks loose when someone like Wilson comes in and in the course of a rebuke calls their congregation a ‘Dionysian f#(kfest’. One might ask why the description garners so much more outrage than the state it accurately (if a bit crudely) describes.
"When we would rather our brothers sow damnation than hear them says the word "d@mn'," That statement is absurd. Also, why did you feel the need to use the @ when you typed "damn." Shouldn't we all follow the Oracle of Moscow.
@@RecalledtoLife Please clarify as your first objection is unclear; are you saying that it is absurd to say that to do so would indicate a distorted sense of perspective? The part you quoted no longer represents the actual statement being made once the predicate is removed but it is the statement that is called absurd, so the scope (and nature) of your objection is unclear. Maybe it will help if I clarify that the description of the proposed scenario in that statement was posed to illustrate a general concept (not a specific allegation), and so could become hyperbolic (though still legitimate as illustrative hyperbole) depending on the specifics of any situation to which it is properly applied. Your second contention is also a bit unclear as it seems to carry several implied premises. I can tell you that I ‘censored’ it to avoid word filters that delete comments, and to avoid giving too much offense/shock/distraction to those who are more sensitive to such things so they can think about the point without hyperfixating on the naughty letter arrangement. That, and it was an easy modification that does not detract from the point. I also certainly do not think everyone needs to imitate Wilson, but that modification is neither an imitation nor an implied disavowal.
@@Globeguy1337 Your statement that I quoted is absurd because NO ONE would rather our brothers sow damnation, (i.e. send people to hell) than use the word damn. (Leaving off the predicate doesn't change the meaning.) I am also always amused at those who defend Doug's scatological language choices but then use an @ to be more "sensitive" to others in their own posts. To each his own.
@@RecalledtoLife You didn’t quote my full statement - you excerpted one part of my statement. The statement was: “WHEN we would rather our brothers sow damnation than hear them say the word ‘d@mn’, it seems like good evidence that some subtle poison has been eating at our sense of perspective.” (emphasis added). There are a couple angles to explore when interpreting this statement grammatically, and both/either make my point. 1: ‘When’ is either a subordinating conjunction or a preposition (it is disputed among grammarians) - either way, it indicates and marks a phrase as a subordinate clause of another part of the statement (the ‘independent clause’). Of course ignoring the independent clause of a statement (which is the main point of the statement) and focusing only on the subordinate clause changes the meaning of the overall statement - especially when you substitute it with your own differing framing. 2: It is also a sort of conditional statement (a ‘zero conditional’, I think) - with the ‘when’ indicating the antecedent. Isolating and presenting an antecedent as a positive statement and ignoring the relation of the antecedent to the consequent (which is the entire point of the conditional statement) absolutely changes the meaning - from positing a conditional relation to asserting the truth of the antecedent. If I say ‘When your house burns down, your insurence pays you for the damages’, you are absolutely changing the meaning if you ignore the predicate (which is also the consequent) and argue “Liar! My house is NOT burning down like you claim it is!”. For a more ‘zoomed out’ and less ‘grammar nerd’ perspective, though, the point was to illustrate a concept; like I said in my previous response, I was not making an accusation that the specific scenario I described is literally happening - what I was doing is illustrating a concept with an example that is likely to be hyperbolic. I happen to think that there are at least some who really do instantiate the illustration (much like how Jesus described many of the Pharisees), but even if you think there literally no such people, the statement still stands uncontested and unaddressed. Your amusement is due to a lack of comprehension on your part, like the man who laughs at the absurd contradiction of ‘people who value freedom but also want laws to exist’, or ‘people who are ‘pro life’ but are okay with the death penalty’. Another one I’ve encountered is those who laugh at the ‘absurd contradiction’ of “God sacrificing himself to himself to save you from himself”. Wilson and I are different people with different skills and situations, and we’re writing different kinds of things with different contexts and different goals for these different writings. It is not absurd to consider that these differences might produce some differences in our writing choices. Like I said before, even Wilson himself does not always write like that, so I don’t see how it is somehow contradictory for me not to either. Edit: It may also interest you to read his own anticipatory response to this whole controversy in the infamous article itself - it is on his Blog and Mablog site under the name ‘That Lutheran Jezebel Lady’.
I know you're trying to be balanced on the issue, but on the language issue I still think you're avoiding the main question: "Does the Bible condemn the use of foul language no matter the context?" If the answer is "yes, it does", then we don't need to ask questions about context, but Ezekiel and Elijah are now condemned. However, if the answer is "no, the Bible actually stipulates godly uses of foul language modelled by the prophets" then there is no way to condemn Wilson based solely on the words he used without actually dealing with the particular context. In other words, it is irrelevant to cite the words he uses without going one-by-one to the context in which they were used.
@@DrBillRoach If you think so, than KDY is just as guilty as DW of using foul language. KDY repeated every single foul word DW ever used in writing in his article attacking DW. At this point you can say "But context matters in the case of KDY, he was referencing the objectionable words used by DW", but here is the problem: If context can justify KDY's use of foul language, it can also justify DW's use. I'm not even saying that all DW's instances of objectionable language are justified, they might or might not be, but the argument has to be made in the context of his writings.
What is the biblical model for calling the church to wake up to the cultural sewer we're in and at times try to adapt to our ministry? Maybe we should re-think the whole conference circuit model (TGC, T4G, etc.) and propping up "celebrity" Christian leaders, and instead turn our effort to action in speaking boldly, publicly about sin in our society and calling for repentance. The weak-kneed church model has run its course and been shown to be sorely lacking. I would submit Jeff Durbin as an example. He has taken an active role in promoting legislation in line with biblical principles and confronting government officials numerous times on issues like abortion and transgenderism, calling them to repentance in how they govern. Is he perfect? Of course not, but his efforts are an example that Christian "leaders" would do well to consider.
The matter of language choices by Doug Wilson are peccadillos in comparison to the affiliations of KDY. Your house is on fire Mr. Young. Get to work on that catastrophe and then maybe others will listen.
Midwest: "Very straightforward in their talk, they don't beat around the bush, they say as is..." North Carolina: "Softer ways that people deal with things, not as straightforward about it, not as much say as it is". Dude -- you're a Yankee. That's why you're rude! Don't worry though, with all the Yankees moving into the South, we will very soon be just like the Midwest. Is that straightforward enough for you?
33:36 for some reason, I feel like Wilson’s use of the tactic was an intentional ploy/trap, and Deyoung just sprung it. From Rules for Reformers quoting Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “There is no distinction to be made between working for reformation and picking a fight. "When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function-to agitate to the point of conflict" (RFR, p. 117). This is a prerequisite to another key truth. "No one can negotiate without the power to compel negotiation" (RFR, p. 119, emphasis his).” -From page 9 of Rules For Reformers “A Tip of the Hat to Saul Alinsky” Even Wilson’s apparent willingness to listen and reflect to whom he believes is a friendly interlocutor seems strategic: “To identify and go after a decisive point is the way to have a disproportionate impact.” He doesn’t have to get Deyoung to move to Moscow to achieve victory, the article was nearly sufficient to have the necessary impact. You somewhat took note of this as well- Deyoung can’t have it both ways, he can’t critique the language and mood of Wilson without also opening himself up to the same critique of TGC. It’s apparent on its face now. More important than that, is not even Deyoung in my opinion. The move to establish the Keller Center, especially in light of Timothy Keller’s passing opened an opportunity as there isn’t currently an equivalent man(titan) of capacity who can speak to the cultural challenges of the day and has the strategy to accomplish it. Keller also was noticeably silent on issues to which Deyoung would acknowledge Wilson for. Considering the principles that Wilson lays out in that same book in section 1, it now looks like some critical infrastructure is in place.
@@lewislibre I meant it more as a cultural figure who loomed large. But because his focus was cultural engagement (I agree with James Wood’s Critique of winsome 3rd wayism) Deyoung’s critique of Wilson is even more ironic as the “synthesis” view (3rd way) is being brought into a dialectic (or into conversation) with ol’ fashion neocalvinistic antithesis (of Kuyper/Bavinck/ Wilson ) and has found points of profound appreciation which weren’t expressed prior.
Completely agree. If you want to affect culture, you have to be heard. This is the reason for the No Quarter November Commercials as well as the reason the powers that be will not give him a platform. But also in Rules for Reformers, doesn't it also say to not let them know what you are up to? SHHH :)
@@christopherthorgesen902 NQN is a marketing ploy. I mean, when else can you buy a NQN flamethrower for over a thousand dollars. I bet the suckers lined up.
He said the ‘C’ word… 😂😂😂… I don’t care 🤷🏿♂️… I care more about the woman melting down purity rings. Christian men these days are way too passive and throw off feminine vibes.
My personal opinion is that KDY ignored all of the massive flaws in Doug's theology. His online demeanor is only one issue. His theology, is a much bigger issue, particularly the fact that he's wrong about the gospel
@@justinhebert5155 Being very familiar with Pastor Doug's theology I suspect that either mattwilly7959 is either unfamiliar with Doug's theology or that he fits into some sort of Arminio-Dispy camp. There seems to be a lot of visceral hatred for the Reformation amongst many who are neither RC or EO.
A lot of popular pastors don't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone. I have no idea what Doug believes about salvation, but at this point I assume most popular leaders don't believe the gospel of grace. For that matter, I have no idea what Kevin believes about salvation.
@@nathanielotto258 Pastor Doug teaches classic Reformed soteriology. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone.
Why are we spending so much effort about Doug Wilson? Unless we are in his Presb. we have no say in anything he says or does. I have learned from Doug as well as cringed at some things and felt sick at others. Wasted time, just talking into the wind. Focus on the body of Christ and the community that we are in. At the end of the day all of the positive feedback about Doug Wilson as well as the negative, will accomplish nothing. Its just Reformed virtue signalling
That sounds good and pious until a church you’re in is split over a public figure, whether it be Wilson or another. We deal with ideas that affect our local churches, not just people in remote regions. Ideas have wings and those ideas sometimes land close to home.
@@DrBillRoach I agree with the statement that ideas have wings. That is very true, but in the history of Christ church on earth that has always been a challenge for elders. The only way to deal with falsehood is truth. The biggest impact we can have is where we are serving. As a former IFB pastor I understand the stupid reasons churches split. If we continue to constantly bring "awareness" to the never ending issues and people of controversy, I believe we are aiding those ideas to fly further. Just my opinion
@@DrBillRoachthat's true. I have a friend whose church in Michigan was in crisis because the pastor was recommending Andy Stanley teaching. These teachers have a tremendous amount of influence
The only bear Doug pokes is the female bear. Still waiting for Doug to use derogatory scatological terms about the male body to make his theological points about the culture. Stop giving this man a pass.
Vapid nonsense: feminism is one of if not the major problem causer in the church today. Were testosterone driven masculinity the root of the problem Doug would address it just as forcefully.
@@Balaams-Ass O.K. I'm going to give this another try. Someone (I wonder who?) deleted my reply. So here it is again. Ha. Ha. But I thought men were wusses. Doug said so.
The problem is...when people see or hear or read Wilson...they just see FV and stop...and unfortunately some other issues...but you are right...some guys or groups never punch to the left.
@@RecalledtoLifeyup, wholesale purchase of social justice, effeminacy and others is just that, well said. Dont know why whatever his pst mistakes are are reason to ignore today’s problems. But if you cant get past that, i guess there’s not much helping you
@@outboardprsnlstndup Heresy is heresy not "pst mistakes". Believe it or not a lot of Christians are not just ignoring today's problems. You just don't hear about them because they labor in small and obscure places without any fanboys touting their latest pronouncements. Doug Wilson merely has a big megaphone for his big mouth. By the way, you can pay Canon Press over a thousand dollars for one of their NQN flamethrowers. Sounds like a deal to me.
@@outboardprsnlstndup Nothing "supposed" about it. But I agree, there are other big problems. Like all the abortion clinics in Moscow that are still open for business.
