On Bad Fruit, Doug Wilson, and Kevin DeYoung

A Needed Rebuke

Kevin DeYoung recently published an article that levels criticisms toward Douglas Wilson, the general attitude and tone that Wilson & Co. demonstrates, and how this "mood" does not align with Christian virtue. As for that thesis, I'm all on board. Wilson’s rhetorical habits are, in fact, not in keeping with Christian virtue or the character of the Gospel.

DeYoung's article is worth reading and is full of worthwhile criticism of Wilson and his so-called "Moscow mood." DeYoung has a way with words and much of what he says and how he says it is commendable.

For example,

When serious criticism is leveled at Moscow, the response often includes a smattering of mockery and memes. This isn't Wilson using his famous "serrated edge" to make a prophetic point against a godless culture. This is intentionally making fun of other Christians for a quick chuckle.

And,

His own denomination has criticized his unnecessarily provocative language, including the use of phrases like "small breasted biddies" and "lumberjack dykes." At other times he's used (without the asterisks I've inserted) words like d*ck, c*ck, c*nt, a**, b**bs (also here, here, here, and here), t*ts, b*tch (also here and here), gaytards, fa**ot, fudgepackers [for male sex], and circle jerks [a term I had to look up, but I wish I hadn't]. To my knowledge, Wilson has not expressed regret or repentance for this language; to the contrary, he has often defended its use.

In highlighting how Moscow's habitual use of extreme rhetoric should not be the norm for faithful Christians, I can only offer a hearty amen. Again, DeYoung gets a lot right in this article, and I appreciate him for that. DeYoung also spends much time praising Wilson for what Wilson is good at. And while I can certainly debate whether or not all of these points are worthy of praise, it's true that Wilson is gifted in some areas.

I also agree with DeYoung that this particular "Moscow mood" is the brand being sold, not necessarily all the doctrinal and ideological distinctions that Wilson holds to and teaches. I don't believe many are coming alongside Wilson because they decided to rethink justification and discovered that mixing in a tad of works is the "actual" Reformed position. Nor do I think regular Reformed sisters and brothers are particularly impressed by how Wilson has handled his plethora of sexual abuse scandals. Instead, defense and acceptance of these ideas often come after buying into the "mood." They're in for a penny and soon will be in for a pound.

And because the "vibe" of Moscow is indeed the selling point, it's also true that it's the vibe that needs a good pastoral rebuke. This pastoral rebuke is what DeYoung does so well. I also commend DeYoung for pointing out how Wilson has mastered the Motte and Bailey fallacy. See here for how he's used this tactic while discussing his view of slavery. Whether it's the Motte and Bailey fallacy or another strategy, Wilson relies too much on his rhetorical skills to obscure his meaning rather than clarify it. His meaning is often hidden in a forest of witticisms and folksy turns-of-phrase that gives him nearly limitless "wiggle room" when confronted. The too-common tactic is saying, "Here are all of these various reasons for X and for why X is good, but that's not to say that X is actually good," is exhausting. Wilson is known for his serrated edge, but his blade often has no clear point—and that's on purpose. The brand is the edge.

However, DeYoung ultimately undermines his worthy thesis, rendering his needed admonition ineffectually toothless.

What’s Upstream

The rightly rebuked "Moscow mood" isn't just some sort of bad tactical choice out of step with Christian virtue. Instead, it's a consequence of flawed theological and philosophical presuppositions. We need to be very clear about this. Yes, Moscow's tone and attitude are their brand, but it's also a brand deeply embedded in their teachings. We cannot effectively rebuke one without addressing the other.

So, what are these flawed theological and philosophical presuppositions?

There are various legitimate ways to discuss the core values of Wilson's Moscow. It's difficult to pinpoint one value as the true ideological "bedrock" of a community's worldview, but we can discern at least a few frontrunners. For example, it's true to say that Wilson's Moscow is a culture focused on power—who has power, who doesn't, and who should have it. But it's also true to say it's a culture focused on sexuality. After all, similar to how everything is always about race with pop-critical theorists, patriarchalists make everything about sex. And, not surprisingly, it's also noteworthy that how Wilson's Moscow obsesses over sex and sexuality is deeply rooted in power dynamics—who is the sexual conqueror and who is the conquest (Fidelity, Douglas Wilson).

I'd say, however, that a more fundamental virtue of this sect is their focus on law as opposed to the Gospel. Power theory and sexualized power theory are but branches attached to the trunk of a graceless law-focused culture.

This graceless, law-focused culture flows from at least two wellsprings.

First, there's a pop-theonomy postmillennialism that's popular in Moscow. This theological disposition contributes to the "mood" issues. While not all flavors of theonomy will breed this type of rotten fruit, it's worth mentioning that when theonomy and the social activism it often entails are emphasized far more than the grace of God, it's hard to convincingly argue that this emphasis has no negative longterm cultural (or "mood") effect. While all forms of distinctly Reformed theonomy are monergistic and affirm the true Gospel, it would be helpful to the Church to meditate on whether or not simply holding the doctrine of the Gospel in the abstract is sufficient to build a culture that communicates the truths of the Gospel in how it functions and communicates.

But while Moscow's variety of theonomy can assuredly affect how we view and live out the Gospel, how Moscow talks about the Gospel itself is more than sufficient to give pause.

In short, they fundamentally distort the Gospel by confusing the meaning of faith. This confusion happens under the theological heading of "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" theology. Though this article isn't intended to examine the errors of this theology thoroughly, I'll provide a brief overview.

Though they adopt Reformed language, they also adapt Reformed language. Though, yes, they affirm standard Reformed phrases, they modify the meaning of keywords. This editing of Reformed theology sometimes happens subtly and other times not. Federal Vision theology has sometimes been called both sloppy and slippery. It's both. For example, faith in Christ is adapted into "faithfulness," which refers to our obedience. Other times, faith alone is swapped out for "covenantal faithfulness." The blurring of the line between sanctification and justification often happens under the surface. Sometimes, sanctification is placed before justification in a novel version of the Ordo Salutis. Sometimes, there's talk of multiple justifications or justifications being "contingent" upon man's obedience. Other times, the law/gospel distinction is either confused or outright rejected. Needless to say, teachers articulate Federal Vision theology in a variety of ways.

Regardless of the respective brand of Federal Vision, what's consistent is confusion on Sola Fide, justification, and, ultimately, the Gospel.

RC Sproul said it well.

I can’t fathom why there’s any hesitancy about [rejecting Federal Vision]. There’s too much at stake—this is the Gospel we’re talking about.

Perhaps the most evident example of the Federal Vision departure from the Reformed understanding of the Gospel is Doug Wilson's standing affirmation of the Joint Federal Vision Statement. Though referencing the Federal Vision has sometimes elicited scoffing as if the error is merely some obscure nuance that makes little real difference, we should be careful. Though these discussions can become intricate and nuanced, complexity is not a reliable indicator of theological irrelevance nor an excuse to flippantly shrug at error. We should remind ourselves that the errors are significant enough for numerous Reformed denominations to denounce. The RPCUS has named Wilson and other Federal Vision leaders heretics, while the PCA, OPC, URNCA, and RCUS have condemned The Federal Vision teaching. And though good faith theological debate is profitable, it does not allow for theological gaslighting that attempts to market Federal Vision as standard Reformed Theology as if everyone involved in the debate, save the Federal Visionists, are delusional. That's, far too often, a disingenuous tactic heavy-laden with revisionist history and equivocations.

It would do us well not to minimize the problem. For a more in-depth discussion of the particularities of these errors, see the above links and here.

To be sure, not everyone in Wilson's Moscow will be guilty of this particular theological error, but what has been consistent is legalistic language and a type of anxious dedication to good works (or works perceived as good) to show that they're truly saved. Rather than flowing from a joyful and thankful heart, good works are encouraged through guilt manipulation and behavior modification. Get with their activism program, or you may be going to hell. Discipline your kids differently than the broader Wilson clan, straight to hell. Heck, simply share an article critical of the pastor and church, and you may be going to hell, too (see this response from Doug regarding this article where he not-so-subtly suggests that those who agree with said article are in need of the Gospel). It's not exactly what I'd call Reformed confessional standards regarding soteriology. Just imagine if Joel Osteen declared to his followers that anyone who shared an article critical of his ministry is likely a reprobate bound for the fires of hell and in dire need of a “Gospel rejoinder.” I reckon every last theologically conservative heresy watchdog site and discernment ministry would quickly and easily see such a pronouncement of not just a heretical view of salvation but a glaring indicator of megalomania and fear tactics. But I digress. A deep dive into how Wilson has, in recent times, taken to declaring anathema like a pseudo-protestant pope on his detractors is for another day.

Whether it's a full-throttle admission of the Federal Vision heresy or simply adopting their heavy-handed and legalistic policies, what it says about the Gospel is nearly the same.

Given how Wilson's teachings have been chock-full of such teachings, implicitly and explicitly, we should not be surprised by how the doctrine of Moscow has informed the rhetoric of Moscow. As Credenda/Agenda, a cultural journal formerly published by Wilson's camp, was keen on teaching, our creed informs our agenda (interesting side note that a friend brought to my attention: Moscow leaves out hope, or “speranda,” out of this historically tri-part approach to the Christian life and interpreting Scripture).

So, understanding the relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, it's not a coincidence that a teaching that focuses on law and adds works to justification will have a heavy-handed and harsh spirit. Now, I'm not attempting a lazy correlation of ideas. I, too, am weary of cheap associations made between good theology and bad actors. This is not such a case.

To put it simply, they attach heavy burdens onto salvation and, therefore, attach heavy burdens onto everyone else. Their theology either puts them in a state lacking assurance and spiritual rest or prideful self-glory. Either way, it fuels a culture of law that has very little to do with grace.

Though belief in works-righteousness can lead to an anxious lack of assurance rather than pride, it's also true that particular sects can encourage one "mood" outcome over another. It's also possible to privately lack restful assurance while publicly displaying arrogance and a propensity for rancorous rhetoric. It's not necessarily mutually exclusive as it's, at times, those most in turmoil internally that externally broadcast a false bravado.

All in all, it's a given that the "Moscow mood" is more inclined towards the bravado outcome (regardless of possible inward anxiety) of works-righteousness as opposed to the despondent "Catholic guilt" outcome. After all, according to Moscow, they have the "secret sauce." Or, at least, till they give some quarter. They have the formula for leading a materially prosperous life. They have the rules that will lead to reformation. They are the "holdout" who "actually get it" while the rest of the Reformed world "drifts."

This isn't to say that these particular theological errors have a monopoly on pride and harshness or that all pride and harshness must flow from similar theological errors. Not at all. Instead, I'm saying these character traits are consistent with their theology. They are a natural consequence as opposed to an aberration. And no, simply saying that you reject the ditch isn't quite good enough when the theology by necessity leads to the ditch.

The connection between pride and works-righteousness isn't a new discovery or a connection I'm manufacturing for the sake of my argument. Nearly all Reformed theologians, at one point or another, stress that adding our works to justification can only bring glory to man rather than Christ. In contrast, the Reformed and Protestant view of Sola Fide removes all excuses for pride. The connection I'm making is nothing more than what the apostle Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Just a Tad Downstream

Flowing just a tad downstream from the Moscow sect's graceless Christianity is a hermeneutic of power. Perhaps, in some ways, even an understanding of power as the most fundamental ontological reality. After all, if God is primarily a lawgiver, earthly leadership should emulate that. The point isn't love or restoration but law and obedience in this worldview. And how can any good mini-god make people follow their rules if they don't have power?

Culturally, this means submission to the few hand-selected (or sometimes self-appointed) leaders is more important than almost everything else. Knowing who you are and your place in this matrix of authority and submission in relation to other Image Bearers of Christ is a virtue of utmost importance in Wilson's Moscow.

This isn't to say that radical individualism or total autonomy is a virtue (they're not) or that ecclesiastical authority is hollow (it isn't), but rather that power, authority, and obedience are not absolute ideas.

Instead, the Christian worldview and the very nature of the Triune God show us that love is the most foundational ontological reality. And that loving power is the virtue, not power divorced from love.

So, in Wilson's Moscow, we get systemic teachings regarding obedience and submission that teach obedience and submission for the sake of obedience and submission. This includes training children with a "blanket game" or other similar “games” that set arbitrary standards for obedience that then punish disobedience to the arbitrary standard. I first became aware of such techniques in the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl (notably, Pelagians), who laid out their various behavior modification practices that could be ripped straight from the pages of a dog training manual. We also have gendered views of authority that sideline morality and ethics in favor of genitalia—views that go far beyond what is typically found in Reformed churches and history. We also have an example of Wilson praising the “dominantly patriarchal character” of Southern slavery and how it was rooted in “mutual affection” and “harmony” (Southern Slavery as it Was, Douglas Wilson & Steve Wilkins).

In other words, everyone in their own place. Everyone knowing who the master is and who the slave is. That is virtue in WIlson’s Moscow.

Though authority and order are not villains, when they become the foundation of how a community is ordered (rather than love and grace), mustaches begin to twirl.

There are dire consequences to these errors. For example, more than one sexual abuse survivor of this "Moscow mood" has said that she, at the time, didn't feel like she could disobey her abusive "authority" and that she needed to submit and endure. The blanket games continue into adulthood.

Picking Our Targets Well

Another element worthy of examination has more to do with who Wilson takes shots at, as opposed to the fact that he regularly opens fire.

For Wilson and Co., harsh criticism and sarcasm are the first tools they reach for. And more than the frequency of using these negative "Moscow mood" tools, they're often aimed at the wrong people. E.g., the abused, the oppressed, earnest brothers and sisters, and the searching lost. Often, we can see who Jesus called "blessed" in Matthew 5 to see a list of Pastor Doug Wilson's favorite targets.

In contrast, when you look into who Jesus most harshly condemned, it was religious teachers who tied up heavy burdens and focused on outward appearances. It was the amoral hypocrites who fancied themselves wise teachers. It was those diligently networking to get themselves the chief seats and all the pats on the back. It was those who neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

So, perhaps it would serve the Church to be more careful about who it's harsh towards, not simply being less harsh. Now, often, it's best to be gentle with both above categories. What's justified is only sometimes profitable. Though Jesus was sometimes harsh, it was not a decision guided by market research, reputation guarding, or institutional networking. Jesus neither feared man nor flattered man. Therefore, when correction is justified, the Church should pay close attention to who gets the gentle admonition laced with flowery flattery and who gets the sharp rebuke. Is there a correlation between when we choose to be harsh and whether or not there may be a social cost to not being polite to someone popular? There's a profound and meaningful difference between how our Lord treated the woman at the well and how he treated the Pharisees. It is a sinful trend in modern evangelicism for leaders (especially of the celebrity or sorta-celebrity sort) to pull their punches when aiming up but to lean into the punch when aiming down. Are we hard on the powerful and influential pastor with all the training, and who should know better? Or are we hard on the young sister or brother with little life experience or theological training?

“A bruised reed shall he not break”

The shepherd gently guides the sheep. He is not gentle with wolves. And though Wilson's Moscow would agree with this idea, I can't help but think they're not the people in the story they think they are. Nor do I always think even critics of Wilson are shepherding well.

A Grievous Closing

DeYoung is in the right for rebuking the "Moscow mood." He's rightly noting bad fruit and wants to do some trimming. I understand this inclination, and trimming some lousy fruit is a good idea. It's, pastorally, an excellent idea to mark out this bad fruit when it's the primary selling point of a community. Look at all those rot marks, mold, and worms! It's a good call-out from Pastor DeYoung.

DeYoung, however, instead of driving home that this "Moscow mood" is a rotten fruit of a rotten tree, leaves the issue on an island, isolated from theological and philosophical context. He isn't duty-bound to focus on all the theological origins of the "Moscow mood." After all, every article can't be about everything, particularly in this case, as there's a lot of ground to cover. But DeYoung, whether he privately believes this or not, leaves the reader with the impression that Wilson's bad mood isn't connected to an overarching philosophical difference. The "Moscow mood" that DeYoung so eloquently criticizes is one of many rotten fruits from a tree obsessed with law, power, and control. If you trim away Wilson's admittedly juvenile, intemperate, and derisive style, we're still left with the same bad roots and many other rotten fruits. And though DeYoung doesn't want to talk about slavery, patriarchalism, sexual abuse, pop-theonomy, and Christian Nationalism and how all those issues relate to Douglas Wilson, all of the above, in one way or another, are downstream from doctrine and ideology. Even focusing on the "mood," what happens when a branch or a fruit gets trimmed away and the ax avoids the trunk? It grows back. 

This is a result of dealing with the optics or the “mood” of a community rather than the substance. Anything you criticize, even criticize well, will endure. 

Further, it's difficult to convincingly argue with anyone sympathetic with Wilson that he should tame his rhetoric when it is consistent with his philosophy. This is why Wilson's followers have lined up to mock DeYoung and call his article hand-wringing, pearl-grasping, and effeminate. Because according to Wilson's worldview, that's precisely what it is. Wilson's defenders understand it's all connected, and so should we. For Wilson, personally, making the issue about style and tone allows him to dodge DeYoung's shots and even deftly turn some of DeYoung's volleys back toward him. As Hannah Anderson points out in this insightful "X" thread, Wilson will play the reasonable gentleman with DeYoung and show all the observers how DeYoung is being unfair. All the while not apologizing or changing his tone in any meaningful way. As it turns out, Anderson was on target, and that's exactly what Wilson and some of his lieutenants are doing. DeYoung's correction is being defanged and neutered on the mainstage while being ridiculed just offstage. 

Some of this is on DeYoung. He, ultimately, undermines his argument by implying, rather strongly, that Doug Wilson would greatly benefit the Church if only he'd clean up his potty mouth and be more polite. While concluding his article, he suggests that Wilson ditch this "Moscow mood" so that he can be more productive for the Church. In making this error, DeYoung shows that he's misdiagnosed the core problems in Moscow. Yes, the "Moscow mood" branding is the top selling point for most, and yes, this lack of virtue in communicating is a danger to souls. But the mood is only a symptom. Encouraging Wilson to trim the bad fruit of his bad mood so that he can better influence the Church communicates one key point. That Wilson's primary problem is this unpleasant symptom. For DeYoung, if Doug Wilson would shift the cultural vibe of Moscow, then he wouldn't be such a problem. And that's a problem. DeYoung doesn't just glance over more profound ideological errors but implicitly allows for them.

I can't guess DeYoung's motivations. He may be more aligned with the ideas of Moscow than some would think. Perhaps he doesn't think their distinctive ideas are all that important or all that dangerous. It's hard to tell. But I do know that DeYoung ends his article by encouraging Wilson to tame his tongue and keyboard so that Wilson can better teach scripture, write about the family and education, blog, mentor young men, and more. I cannot disagree more with DeYoung on this point. 

While much of DeYoung's criticism is certainly well deserved and helpful, he takes what should be seen as a symptom and pushes it onto center stage. That in itself isn't awful, but to plead the case that Wilson should clean the outside of his proverbial cup in order to do more in the Church is a ruinous conclusion to an article with great potential. 

That's why I'm so disappointed in DeYoung's article. The great value of DeYoung's articulation of Wilson's "Moscow mood" is clear, but that only worsens the undermining of this point. It's not true that if Wilson would clean up his act and speak more like Tim Keller (or, for that matter, more like Kevin DeYoung), he'd be a fantastic blessing to the Church. Instead, if Wilson spoke and acted more like a "statesman" of the Church, it's possible that the harm he caused would be even greater. And not just harm caused by being overly abrasive but harm to those vulnerable to injustice and harm to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

Rather than censoring his naughty language and adjusting the vibes in Moscow, Doug Wilson must cease teaching doctrines that confuse the Gospel and teaching philosophies that lord men over women and men. Moreover, all other matters aside, how he has mishandled sexual abuse in his Church is disqualifying. I don't say this in a flippant manner but rather with sober seriousness. I make my argument here while outlining a particularly heinous example of sexual abuse being mishandled in Moscow.

There's value in pointing out the dangers of a symptom. But there's potentially substantial harm in mistaking the symptom for the disease. In doing so, the disease will only spread and grow. 

Until the disease is cured, the more excellent way does not include further teaching and leadership in the Bride of Christ devoid of Wilson taking responsibility, facing accountability, and a clear commitment to Sola Fide and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Soberly and seriously, unless Doug Wilson changes course, he will be like those "whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." Kevin DeYoung doesn't just fumble the ball for Wilson's victims, he fumbles it for Wilson himself.