Why Are Wilson’s Children Warriors?
Modern America is now Gomorrah in the hands of Cultural Marxists. We tend to forget and ignore the fact that Marxism itself has a history, and its history always results in the shedding of the blood of millions of people. We must be pro-life, not pro-death, even beyond the womb. For non-cultural theologians, their hope may be in believing that persecution is the best way to heaven. For cultural theologians, persecution may be their calling, too, but in time to come, the Kingdom of God will come to earth in its fullness, and the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, all before the second coming of Christ.
I have never met Doug Wilson personally. I have been present twice when he spoke, once at the Auburn Avenue Conference in 2002 in Monroe, Louisiana, and then twenty years later at the Fight, Laugh, Feast (FLF) Conference in 2022 in Knoxville, Tennessee. In his book on the Book of Revelation he cites two times from my book on the Book of Revelation, so I know he has read at least one of my books. When I was a local church pastor, I used his book on marriage (Reforming Marriage) often in marital counseling. It was, and maybe still is in my opinion, the best available. I listen to his YouTube presentations on occasion, but I find that he can be difficult to follow because his vocabulary and phraseology seem to be channeling either the genre of G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis, two of his heroes. I find this frustrating. Yet, his impact on the modern evangelical and reformed church cannot be denied.
I am older than Doug Wilson, and I was probably reading Rev. Rousas Rushdoony and Dr. Gary North long before he was. I personally knew both Rushdoony and North. Thus, I am not one of Wilson’s warrior children as Mr. Gordon classifies in his article (See Wilson’s Warrior Children by Chris Gordon, December 11, 2023). I call myself one of Rushdoony’s warrior children. The main point of contention with Wilson from Rushdoony’s children is over the legitimacy of natural law in Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism published by Wilson’s Canon Press.
Mr. Gordon in the title of his article plays off Professor John Frame’s article Machen’s Warrior Children. However, I think he misses the mark because Frame deals in his presentation with all the controversies (21 of them) that divided those who followed Machen. Wilson’s children are not battling each other, at least not currently. The Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which originates in Moscow, Idaho, portrays an ecumenical spirit of unity which includes those from Reformed Baptist backgrounds. The Church as a denomination has its own identity and communion now apart from Wilson.
I do think, however, that Gordon gets to the important point about Wilson and his followers. Gordon deals more with substance than form, and I think he is right on target here. There is something missing in the modern Reformed world, and a multiplicity of young men are flocking to Wilson and others to fill that vacuum. It is more than just a mood.
As a balance, before I say anything else, I should mention several church leaders and conferences that add much to the discussion of reformed theology and piety today. They are godly men. These godly men are included in Gospel Reformation Network (GRN), Presbycast, Together for the Gospel (T4G), The Founder’s Ministry of the Sword and the Trowel (TS&TT), and the G3 Ministries (Gospel, Grace, and Glory), to name a few. These represent prominent pastors, many of large churches, and their numerous conferences, webpages, and podcasts. I call these non-cultural theologians. They indeed have much to offer, but the problem is that they are not dealing with the issues that are drawing young men like a magnet to Wilson and Moscow.
Actually, the theological engine that propels Wilson and Moscow includes a much broader family than Wilson and Moscow. Others include The Center for Cultural Leadership (CCL) headed by Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin, the Ezra Institute (Dr. Joe Boot), Apologia Ministries (Pastor Jeff Durbin), and Right Response Ministries (Pastor Joel Webbon). I would also include (without his permission) Apologist and Reformed Baptist Dr. James White, a postmillennialist who interviewed Doug Wilson on the topic of Federal Vision. I call these cultural theologians.
Many young men are not hearing from non-cultural theologians what they need in order to be good fathers and to be faithful in their callings in life outside of the church. The application of God’s law which challenges the modern culture is missing. Thus, they often go home after church and get their needed supplements (as in vitamins) from cultural theologians via various social media outlets. This might be a surprise to many non-cultural theologians, but it is happening. Cultural ministries like Canon Press and the Crosspolitic programs are quickly growing in popularity.
Most Reformed pastors avoid crucial and popular issues that are raging outside the church sanctuary. They are probably not going to be dragged off to jail. Their linear expository preaching somehow enables them to avoid certain important topics. They are comfortable still fighting the heretics from the Reformation period and the old liberalism of J. Gresham Machen’s time (which need to be fought). However, they are stuck in the past. They are so saturated in the New Testament period; they forget that Christendom has enjoyed centuries of blessings after the close of the New Testament Canon.
We are watching the end of American Christendom in our own day. There is a new enemy. It is called Cultural Marxism, and this demon is at the doorway of our churches. However, I fear that this new enemy is not even on the radar of most non-cultural theologians. I am not even sure they have the skills to fight this enemy. Their seminary training did not equip them to deal with this. The only way to gain the needed skills is to read outside the box. Dealing with Cultural Marxism publicly certainly might divide the church. As a former pastor, I know how important church unity is. However, I was never afraid to preach on topics like the Bible and inflation (Theology in a Reece’s Cup) or on Wokism (Are You Woke?).
What then are the substantive issues? Let me mention a few.
- Eschatology is one issue. Optimistic eschatology brings hope on earth, even in the most desperate times. As Isaac Watts wrote in “Joy to the World,” the blessings of the gospel will spread as far as the curse is found. This is no place to present the case for postmillennialism. All I need to do is mention that most professors at Old Princeton were postmillennialists. According to Professor John Frame in his article on “Machen’s Warrior Children,” J. Gresham Machen was a postmillennialist.
- Covenantalism is another issue. This is why these men put so much emphasis on the family. Yes, it is better to be with Christ than live on in a world filled with so much pain, but many of us believe that the world is not coming to an end anytime soon. Abraham was a stranger in a foreign land, not because he was in the flesh, but because he was in a land full of idols. Any perspective without the hope of the blessings of the covenant to a thousand generations tends to slip into Neoplatonism and Escapism.
We have a responsibility to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren (you can tell my age here), and we pray that they will become leaders in their own callings, including even those who serve from county commissioner to the highest posts in civil government. Politics is not the way to blessing. Covenant faithfulness over generations to our children and our children’s children is the way to bring the fullness of the Kingdom of God to earth before Christ returns in all his glory to reign on a purified and earthly earth. When training up your children, be sure to teach them Christian systematics and apologetics. Make certain they understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
- Kingdom incarnation is another issue. Jesus came announcing the presence of the Kingdom and not the gospel. The gospel was the instrument to a realized (not over-realized) Kingdom, but not the Kingdom itself. Too, the Kingdom is greater than the church. Wherever the law of the King reigns, there is the Kingdom. This is why Jesus told us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Again, Machen was an example of this when he testified as a clergyman before a United States Senate and House Committee on the proposed Department of Education. He was being salt in the world.
- Worship is another issue. Worship is a calling to focus on Christ and his work. It is the worship of the Triune God, especially on the Lord’s Day. However, it is also a call to battle as men exit the doors of the church—not just to fight sin in their own hearts but to tame sin in a world we see with our own eyes. Men want to fight for their families. They do not want to see them swallowed up with the wicked. The wicked will commit suicide and we do not want our children to go to the grave with them. Worship prepares them for this battle.
The biggest opposition to Cultural Theologians is the Westminster West Seminary R2K proponents. They promote the idea that the Bible is for the Church only, and has nothing to say to the Civil Magistrate. The Civil Magistrate is bound to follow Natural Law only, and whatever the Civil Magistrate does is right because God has given him this authority apart from consulting the Holy Scriptures. One of them has even pushed the idea that if the Civil Magistrate decides to kill Christians, he is doing the right thing because, after all, he is the Civil Magistrate. Cultural Theologians find this appalling.
Non-cultural theologians are mission-minded. However, what some of us find puzzling is that as we put more and more missionaries on the field to disciple other nations, we are more and more in this country dying as a Christian nation. It is difficult to teach others to fly a plane when you have failed to fly one yourself. The Church has lost its ability to be salt and light in America. How then can we take the good news to the whole world when it seems that at home the Christian Faith is failing, and it is irrelevant outside the church sanctuary and personal devotions?
I have watched similar so-called movements as Wilson and Moscow in the past destroy themselves, whether it be the Tyler, Texas fiasco or the ministries of Mark Driscoll. However, things may now be different. Neither of these two failures resulted in a new denomination nor were accompanied by numerous other separate ministries headed in the same direction. Even if Moscow were to implode, the message will continue. So, non-cultural theologians need to realize that cultural theologians are not going away. The best way to deal with them is to recognize that they are legitimate and pursue a right relationship with them.
Cultural theologians are not in a panic mode. No, they do not believe the sky is falling tomorrow. We are not out to reclaim through politics the structure of America. Donald Trump is not the answer. God is sovereign. That is our hope. However, we do not swallow the dialectic of the cross verses glory. We believe in both, that because of the cross, Christ will be glorified not only in heaven but also upon earth as his people seek to bring every thought captive to his authority. Meekness in the heart granted by the Spirit of God is the way to the realization of this glorious kingdom, not for the glory of mere mortals like us, but for glory of our majestic God! The Kingdom is not from this world, but it is indeed in this world.
Modern America is now Gomorrah in the hands of Cultural Marxists. We tend to forget and ignore the fact that Marxism itself has a history, and its history always results in the shedding of the blood of millions of people. We must be pro-life, not pro-death, even beyond the womb. For non-cultural theologians, their hope may be in believing that persecution is the best way to heaven. For cultural theologians, persecution may be their calling, too, but in time to come, the Kingdom of God will come to earth in its fullness, and the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, all before the second coming of Christ. Whether they see it in fruition or not, it gives them a purpose on earth, both in their families and in their callings. It is wonderful to think that you had a part, be it ever so small, in the long-term victory. We are in it for the long-haul. That is why Wilson’s children and others are fighting as warriors.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
-
Jesus Sin Debt and Forgiveness
The New Testament has many terms, images, pictures and metaphors that speak about what the work of Christ at Calvary entailed. The cancellation of our sin debt is one such image. As Peter O’Brien nicely summarises in his WBC volume: “God has not only removed the debt; he has also destroyed the document on which it was recorded.” That is great news indeed.
Sinners are debtors who have no way of paying off the debt they owe. The good news of the Christian gospel is that Christ has cancelled that debt for us, by suffering in our place. Indeed, Jesus paid a very heavy price to secure our salvation. He took the punishment that we deserved upon himself, so that we might experience forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ.
Having written several articles recently on a different kind of debt – student debt – and President Biden’s plan to cancel much of it, I have already looked at political, economic, biblical and theological matters having to do with debt forgiveness or cancellation.
I have made it clear that when it comes to the state, there is no cancellation or forgiveness of debt – only transference. The student is let off the hook while the taxpayer foots the bill. Sadly some naive and clueless Christians have tried to argue that student debt relief is something Christians should fully support, and that it is like Jesus forgiving our debts.
Um no, it is NOT at all similar. The government approach transfers the debt to a third party. People still have to pay off the debt. The biblical story of the forgiveness of sins has to do with Jesus taking our place and doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. This involves the genuine cancellation of debt.
But since the idea of biblical salvation is often being raised here when it comes to student debt relief, it is worth looking at this matter further. I have already written about how things like the Sabbath Year and the Year of Jubilee as found in Leviticus 25 have nothing at all to do with modern things like student debt forgiveness: billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/02/difficult-bible-passages-leviticus-25/
But here I want to look further at what Christ actually did on our behalf on the cross. And while terms like forgiveness and the like are used quite often in the New Testament, the only place where the idea of debt cancellation is clearly used is in Colossians 2:13-14. Let me offer a few translations of this text, and then offer some commentary.
Since this passage does present some exegetical, interpretive and theological problems, including the use of hapax legomena (a word used only once – in this case in the NT), offering a few different translations can help us get a feel for what Paul is trying to argue here:
“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” ESV
“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.” NIV
“You were dead, because you were sinful and were not God’s people. But God let Christ make you alive, when he forgave all our sins. God wiped out the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses. He took them away and nailed them to the cross.” CEV
“And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” NASB
Read More
Related Posts: -
In a Distant Land
Even as we rejoice in every one of God’s blessings and celebrate every evidence of his grace, still we long to be in that new land, that new home, that new place where we can—where we will—truly thrive, where we will display our fullest potential, where we will be all that God has made us to be.
The young woman entered her parent’s home for what she understood would be the final time. The funeral had been solemn but still sweet, for she knew that her father had at last joined her mother. It had been a good many years since death had parted them, but now they were together in the grave and together in heaven.
The door squeaked just a little as she opened it, but beyond it there was only silence—no familiar voice to greet her and no familiar arms to hug her. The house had already been packed up and most of her parent’s possessions already distributed. There remained just a few family treasures and meaningful knick-knacks that she wished to take as her inheritance and to keep as her own. Among them was a little chest that her father had indicated should go to her. Intrigued, she opened it and saw that it contained just one simple seed.
When she returned home she went straight to her garden and pressed the seed into the soil. She watered it diligently and ensured there was plenty of sun to warm the ground. And then she waited. She waited through the spring rains and summer’s first heat. The day came when she saw just the smallest hint of green breaking through the soil, then a shoot, and then the beginnings of a plant. Before long the seed had produced a lovely little shrub.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Jesus and John Wayne among the Deplorables
Book Criticisms: Du Mez will entertain only those arguments that accept her framework and dismiss any theological appeals, because Evangelicalism is not defined by theology, no matter what Evangelicals themselves claim. Once the reader realizes that this is what Du Mez is up to, he can make sense of how it is that she arrives at many of her conclusions. She simply ignores the Evangelical’s own claims about what drives him, and decides to analyze Evangelicalism through the lens of cynicism she has constructed. Du Mez’s slanders are as casual as they are broad.
Evangelicalism has lost its way.
It’s a popular message on the Left in the post-Trump era. The Left never liked Evangelicals to begin with – too conservative, too anti-gay, too public in their objections to the prevailing secular creeds they would say – but Trump, whom Evangelicals supported in droves, gave their critics a new charge to level at them: hypocrisy. These high and mighty moralizers, the Left said, were willing to abandon any principle in pursuit of political power. They had no right to preach to others values they would not practice.
The Evangelical writer David French has been in the thick of this conversation writing on the intersection of evangelical faith, politics, and corruption with such essays as: “Why Christians Bond With Corrupt Leaders,” “A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation,” and “Deconstructing White Evangelical Politics.”
“‘Deconstruction’ is a hot topic in elite Evangelicalism,” French says. “It’s a word with many meanings. At its best it can represent an honest, critical re-examination of not just your personal faith, but also the theology and behavior of your faith community. We should be in a constant process of interrogating our own beliefs and actions in light of the person and example of Jesus Christ. White Evangelical politics are due for deconstruction.”
History, or something else?
Enter Kristin Kobes Du Mez, whose book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, is cited by French as “a compelling and challenging argument.” Du Mez provides a historic account of “[t]he path that ends with John Wayne” – contraposed to Christ – “as an icon of Christianity,” of “rugged, heroic masculinity embodied by cowboys, soldiers, and warriors to point the way forward.” It is the account of a church that has commodified Christianity, intertwined faith and right-wing politics, and “invoked a sense of peril in order to offer fearful followers their own brand of truth and protection” and stoke “[e]vangelical militancy.” It is a church that has forgotten Christ.
We could concede, for sake of argument, some aspects of her account. The various moral failures of major figures in Evangelicalism are well documented. We could also dispute other claims, as various reviewers have here, here, and here. However, so as not to be duplicative of the work of others, we will focus on the foundational problems of her theoretical framework.
The facts recounted in any historical work are important, but so are the uses to which those facts are put, the tools used to analyze those facts, and the conclusions that are drawn from those facts. Accurate details can be both cherry-picked and omitted, and either of those can allow for the creation of a false narrative or leave the reader with a false impression. In short, what we want to know is whether or not the tools and analysis Du Mez employs in the curation of her historical record are sound, and whether or not the conclusions that she draws from that curated record are justified. That is, we want to know whether or not the house of Jesus and John Wayne is built on a solid intellectual foundation, and my contention is that it is not.
Jesus and John Wayne is built on the shifting sand of postmodernism. No Christian interested in her thesis can ignore the implications of her methodology. To embrace her work is to embrace the postmodern deconstruction of Christianity.
To understand Jesus and John Wayne, it is best to see it as a sort of answer to the question: “Why did Evangelical Christians, with their very conservative Christian moral ethics, come to be the backbone of support behind Donald Trump, a man who is infamous for his rude language and known for his (admitted) marital infidelities?” This is the question that Du Mez seeks to answer in her work.
Du Mez attempts to determine what exactly it is that conservative Evangelicals believe about masculinity, and how that relates to their view of who in society should be in positions of power. She claims to uncover the deeper sociological and historical reasons Evangelicals came to hold these views about gender and power. As she does that, Du Mez documents scandal upon scandal among the leadership in Evangelical circles. She places special attention on scandals involving Evangelical leaders at the forefront of fighting “the culture war.” Du Mez pulls up many examples of people who were caught up in financial scandals, sex scandals, abuse scandals, and various cover ups meant to hide all these scandals from public view.
All this she thinks adds up to the conclusions that Evangelicalism is racist, sexist, homophobic, and that Evangelicalism as it stands needs to be “undone.”
Du Mez readily admits that her work is a work of deconstruction, and that she is influenced by the work of postmodern philosopher Michael Foucault.[1] Much of Jesus and John Wayne is a Foucauldian Archeology of Evangelical discourse around masculinity, and a Foucauldian genealogy of how that discourse developed.
If we follow postmodern methods to their ultimate conclusions, they dissolve every belief system and every philosophical framework to which they are applied, including postmodernism itself. A philosophy or method that dissolves everything proves nothing, save for the fact that the philosophy or the method itself is flawed. So it is with postmodernism.
Evangelical Delusions
On her own account, Du Mez is attempting to show that “constructs like ‘Christian worldview’ might reflect the interests of those who fashion them, even at times distorting biblical teaching.” The problem is, she never does a proper analysis of whether or not the doctrines, ideas, and beliefs she criticizes in this way are true.
Rarely does Du Mez argue that the theology of Evangelicals is wrong on the merits. She does not show that they have made an interpretive mistake, nor does she argue, prove, demonstrate, or otherwise show that the tenets of American Evangelicalism are not warranted. Instead, she asserts that they are defined by cultural and political commitments and then draws negative inferences on that basis alone. Du Mez is attempting to tear down the edifice of Evangelical theology by appealing to elements in the sociological situation in which Evangelical theological claims and justifications were formed. On Du Mez’s telling, Evangelicals’ concerns about family were really about sex and power, their views of biblical innerancy were really a proxy for fights about gender, and their opposition to abortion was really about trying to push back against the gains made by feminism. Arguments of this type abound in Jesus and John Wayne.
The method relies on a fallacy that has been rebutted by John Searle, namely:
If we have justifications for our beliefs, and if the justifications meet rational criteria, then the fact that there are all sorts of elements in our social situation that incline us to believe one thing rather than another may be of historical or psychological interest but it is really quite beside the point of the justifications and of the truth or falsity of the original claim.[2]
This is the heart of the problem with Du Mez’s book. Her account of Evangelicals – they are animated by wrong motives, hidden agendas, unfair biases, and power-seeking;, they’re complicit in a litany of terrible things – is not an argument. Du Mez is attempting to tear down the edifice of Evangelical theology by casting elements of the sociological situation in which Evangelical theological claims and justifications were formed in the least charitable possible light. But, as Searle points out, whether or not our sociological situation inclines us toward one belief or another is not relevant to whether or not those beliefs are actually true.
The entire danger here is that we end up with a way of analyzing and understanding theology that is utterly unmoored from the truth. It doesn’t even matter whether Du Mez perceives herself to be operating in such a deconstructionist fashion: Her method sets aside the difficult work of determining truth and replaces it with the cheap substitute of speculating about people’s perceived interests and motives. Searle describes the danger of critique unmoored by the search for truth:
What are the results of deconstruction supposed to be? Characteristically the deconstructionist does not attempt to prove or refute, to establish or confirm, and he is certainly not seeking the truth. On the contrary, this whole family of concepts is part of the logocentrism he wants to overcome; rather he seeks to undermine, or call in question, or overcome, or breach, or disclose complicities.[3]
In this way Du Mez thinks that she can “see through” the theological claims of Evangelicals, and as such she can set them aside. In a passage in the concluding section of Jesus and John Wayne Du Mez makes this clear:
Despite evangelicals’ frequent claims that the Bible is the source of their social and political commitments, evangelicalism must be seen as a cultural and political movement rather than as a community defined chiefly by its theology. Evangelical views on any given issue are facets of this larger cultural identity, and no number of Bible verses will dislodge the greater truths at the heart of it.[4]
Read More
