I keep hearing one name is the very source of what is labeled christian nationalism. Dan and others can really only lay everything on Doug Wilson. My problem is that I'm not going to invest the time, energy, or money to read any or all of Wilson's books or dig through what are likely mountains of online content by him. I tend to prefer to get my information directly from the source and not blindly accept the word of those who demonize Wilson. After a first crack at exploring I have a couple of thoughts. The piece below is a pretty good overview that is coming from a more conservative source.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/doug-wilson-is-not-a-prophet
FWIW my problems with Wilson.
1. He's just another version of Mark Driscoll. He spouts controversial crap for shock value, and twists Scripture to justify his excesses.
2. He's not a prophet in the sense he claims to be. I see no evidence that the OT role of prophet has been continued after the beginning of The Church. That he operates in a manner so different from the OT prophets seems to illustrate this.
3. Part of his success is the fact that his denomination has let him run wild without invoking Church discipline to rein him in.
Much like Christians ended up taking down Mars Hill and identifying Driscoll as the abusive heretic that he was, Christians should take down Wilson.
I'm not sure how much actual political influence Wilson has, and I try not to make unfounded assumptions. Having said that, he's too close to Trump and Hegseth and they should probably distance themselves from him.
This points to a bigger problem, though. Trump's faith advisors are very much a collection of people with fringe, aberrant, un Biblical theological positions. I'd rather Trump disband his faith office, than be advised by the people he's advised by. I suspect that this explains Trump's strange responses when asked about his faith. I simply don't believe that the people he's surrounded himself with are interested in making a disciple of Trump as much as raising their won profiles.
I suspect that part of the problem with Trump's faith advisors is that anyone who's even close to "mainstream" is either too involved in real ministry to get involved, or too worried about being savaged by the left for being a part of Trump's team. Which is a shame, as I believe that presidents need and deserve the best possible spiritual guidance from people who are genuinely concerned with his spiritual well being instead of proximity to power.
In short, Wilson is one more in a long line of false teachers that have existed throughout the centuries. He's seems to be looking for power, influence, and self gratification more than anything else.
31 comments:
Well done.
As to "too worried about being savaged by the left for being a part of Trump's team."... If he were to bring in a range of reasonable people of faith likely to pass on good spiritual advice, why would we "savage" them?
Also, if your president were to bring in a Shaine Claiborne, Nadia Bolz-Weber, and Rob Bell, do you suspect that they religious right (or maybe you, yourself) would savage them with howling and gnashing of teeth?
Given anything how quickly the left rose around the terms like racist, homophobe, Nazi, and the light I can totally see why someone like Greg Laurie, Who seemed generally supportive of conservative political policies, but used to avoid those attacks in favor of actually casting in church. It’s obviously just my opinion, play. I can understand why Pastor don’t want to take the risk.
No, but it’s interesting that the people using tested are not exactly middle of the road. All of them are fairly extremely progressive theologically as well as.
Be more appropriate comparison would probably be what the reaction would Have been had Biden Brought in a bunch of left leaning Christians for his advisors.
Personally, and I’m pretty sure I said this, when some of the weirdos were announced initially, I think the whole idea is kind of stupid. I think any pastor who would want to be in that kind of position is probably doing it. Elevator desired to be important, and I think that any president who wants advice on face matters should be able to get on the phone with anyone of any political persuasion without a whole lot of trouble. But that’s just me.
The problem with this comparison game is that y’all would have lost your minds if Voddie Baucham or John MacArthur would have played these roles under Biden.
You didn't answer my question: If this president or any president had brought in folks like the three I mentioned, conservatives would lose their minds, wouldn't they? They would savage those preachers NOT because of some scandal, but simply because they disagree with their religion and politics, right?
As for me, I would not lose my mind over Voddie Baucham, as I don't know the first thing about them/him (male?). As to MacArthur, for a man known to have sexually predatory background like this president, to bring on a pastor who shamed a church member for leaving her abusive husband, yes, I would have a problem with that.
But it's not about his theology, it's about the abusive patriarchy, especially in the context of a man with so much sexually predatory history.
The point being, I wouldn't automatically "savage" or raise concerns about just anyone that a president (especially this president with all his known issues and his history of profiteering off of Christianity!) brought on as spiritual advisors. But when they bring on a problematic person, yes, that's something to raise a concern about. And when they bring on a whole board of, as you say, wackos, that's a serious problem.
I did answer your question to the best of my ability. I can’t speak for everyone else.
But, I’ll try again.
If conservatives aren’t freaking out over the current bunch of false teachers, I can’t see why they’d freak out over a different bunch of false teachers.
Thank you for making my point.
Since pretty much nothing is about theology with you, I’m not surprised.
That you seem unaware that Wilson is not on Trump’s faith advisory board is also not surprising.
Wolves are wolves, false teachers are false teachers. I’m much more concerned about theology than politics because I don’t put my hopes in the hands of politicians.
Wow, Craig! You must've been in a hurry, in the dark or typing while driving. Lots of misspellings and typos in your above comment. Were you dictating with spellchecking? :D
I'll volunteer for our president's spiritual advisor! I'd certainly be more Biblically sound in my advice, preaching and teaching than would his current crop of advisors would be, and absolutely more Christian than any Dan would suggest. What's more, I could call upon better pastors, theologians and Biblical scholars to help. And when a Pelosi, Biden or Talarico opens their mouths I can tell Trump how to expose their falseness.
Craig:
If conservatives aren’t freaking out over the current bunch of false teachers, I can’t see why they’d freak out over a different bunch of false teachers.
1. The problem is, by "false teachers" in the case of the more progressive Christians, these are good faith followers of Jesus from all I see (and truly, I don't know any of them that deeply, for what it's worth... but probably not any more than you don't know them that deeply) who merely disagree with you on some theological and political questions. In the case of the crazies in Trump's circle of crazies, they are, we are all agreed, off the beaten path of Christianity.
2. Conservatives WOULD lose their mind over a Shaine Claiborne advising the president. It's disingenuous of you to suggest they wouldn't.
Come, now. Be better than that. Your mere comparison of them to a Christian nationalist like Doug Wilson is evidence of conservatives' inability to abide disagreement from people of good faith.
Another point: Do you truly think that these three, for instance, are NOT talking about what they believe in good faith in their path to follow Jesus the best they understand Jesus?
On what rational, measurable rubric would you insist that people like Talarico are a "wolf in sheep's clothing..." "pretending to be a Christian..."?
Because it hurts your feelings that he in good faith disagrees with some of your personal human opinions?
Yes, voice to text can be difficult and I was in a hurry.
Given anything how quickly the left rose around the terms like racist, homophobe, Nazi, and the like, I can totally see why someone like Greg Laurie, who seems generally supportive of conservative political policies, might prefer to avoid those attacks in favor of actually pastoring his church. It’s obviously just my opinion but I can understand why Pastor don’t want to take the risk.
No, but it’s interesting that the people you suggested are not exactly middle of the road. All of them are fairly extremely progressive theologically as well as.
Be more appropriate comparison would probably be what the reaction would Have been had Biden Brought in a bunch of left leaning Christians for his advisors.
Personally, and I’m pretty sure I said this, when some of the weirdos were announced initially, I think the whole idea is kind of stupid. I think any pastor who would want to be in that kind of position is probably doing it to elevate themselves, and out of a desire to be important. I think that any president who wants advice on faith matters should be able to get on the phone with anyone of any political persuasion without a whole lot of trouble. But that’s just me.
Hope that's better.
I get your point, but I suspect that it's a thankless job with little or no upside.
1. Well, yes, that is your opinion. Of course the three you mentioned are pretty far off of the beaten path as well, they're just on your side of the path.
2. Prove this claim. My point still stands. If conservatives aren't losing their minds about the current bunch of yahoos, they aren't going to lose their minds over Claiborne.
I think that almost every single false teacher out there (The Bethel folx, Driscoll, Hinn, Osteen, Warren, The Hillsong folx, Kenneth Hagen, Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, et al) all believe that they are acting in "good faith". Teaching heresy in "good faith" doesn't magically make it acceptable.
Come now, be better than that. I didn't compare them to Wilson.
Talarico is misusing Scripture to advocate for leftists political policies and to try to convince swing voters that he is somehow a "mainstream" Christian. He's literally a minister, abusing Scripture for personal and political gain. Wolf is one of the nicer things. As for the "pretending..." I didn't say that, and I addressed it earlier. Be better and pay attention to what I say, and don't lie about it.
No, it doesn't hurt my feelings at all.
The chance to share the Gospel as it should be (or far more closely than any progressive fake would) would be upside enough, so long as I get a cot and three squares.
It’s possible.
Craig:
Of course the three you mentioned are pretty far off of the beaten path as well,
By "off the beaten path," can we agree that these are people who, by all evidence,
1 love God, the bible and the teachings of Jesus and are dedicated to living that out in their lives;
2 and yet, who disagree with human traditions like a belief in a literal hell, a belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement;
3 and by "far off the path" you mean they disagree with your human traditions on those points AND that disagreeing with other humans on those points means they are "fake Christians" as you said? "Wolves in sheep clothes..."?
4 and if so, how is that not a works-based salvation - that you have to affirm hell and PSA and a few other human traditions? That, indeed, you can't even CALL them human traditions, you must affirm they are the "word of god..." and failure to understand that means you aren't saved and, indeed, are fake?
As to fake Christians, I think when you look at biblical teachings that touch on things like "wolves in sheep clothing," you'll find that it's always pointing to people who are deliberately working to enrich themselves and gain power, not the merely mistaken. Right? Also, regardless of what the Bible says, that's just common moral sense, is it not?
I think one of the problems my conservative family has is that they just don't believe that God is truly in us... that we are created in the very image of God and so, you try to find a foolproof magic bible answer and that just fails under its own weight and you can't see that.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. See 1-3.
If you make claims, prove them.
Then you would be wrong once more. Maybe you should stop thinking things that are incorrect or stop saying what you think before you know what you’re talking about.
Being Graceless and presumptuous are not a good indicator of one being a follower of Jesus. That's the work of the Accuser.
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down’” (Revelation 12:10).
Satan is relentless in his accusations—he accuses God’s children continually. He hates God and all that God is, which means he also hates God’s mercy and forgiveness extended to sinful humanity. Satan the accuser stands before God in an attempt to somehow lessen God’s love or diminish God’s mercy. Fortunately, his accusations against us fall on deaf ears: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies” (Romans 8:33).
And still, you are left with your works-based heresy.
Not a good look.
Also, where you say that, No, they do not disagree with human traditions like a belief in a literal hell, a belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement... what does THAT mean? Of course, they/we disagree with them. Are you guessing that we disagree with them sincerely and in good faith? Explain that, it seems like a contra-factual claim.
Your projecting too much.
You’re projecting your biases on conservatives, just like you’re projecting your biases on your troika of paragons.
You could try being better, but it seems unlikely.
It means that my disagreements with them are much more than your three litmus tests.
You bitch when you don’t think you get a clear, direct answer and you bitch when you do.
I’ve never even suggested a “works based” anything. Your projecting.
Ahhhhhh the random, out of context, proof text. Especially effective when it’s parts of the NT that aren’t Jesus’ words.
Coming from someone who is excellent at displaying gracelessness, presuming, and who denies the existence of Satan/The Accuser, this is a truly bizarre comment. That it’s incoherent on top of those is just a bonus.
It appears that Dan is grumpy because I didn’t agree with his claim that conservatives would be more upset about left wing false teachers advising Trump. You see how this disagreement has upset him.
"1 love God, the bible and the teachings of Jesus and are dedicated to living that out in their lives;"
Saying so doesn't make it so. It certainly doesn't in Dan's case.
"2 and yet, who disagree with human traditions like a belief in a literal hell, a belief in Penal Substitutionary Atonement;"
Not "human traditions", unless by that expression you mean the human tradition of accepting the clearly revealed Word of God as found in Scripture. The progressive tradition of dismissing Scripture progressives don't like as "human tradition" is cheap cowardice in lieu of an intelligent, honest and Scripture-based counter argument.
"3 and by "far off the path" you mean they disagree with your human traditions on those points"
As with you, having little to no sound Biblical basis for their corruptions and heresies. I've had disagreements with Craig, Stan and Glenn, but I don't regard any of them as "off the path". YOU, on the other hand, either don't know where the path is or refuse to walk it.
"4 and if so, how is that not a works-based salvation
Because it's a false representation of the truth.
With my limited knowledge of those who are advising Trump on religious matters...the only one I can say with certainty is not a good choice is Paula White...I can't say that I'd be any less pleased with any of Dan's selections. I want someone who isn't like Dan and his kind, and White seems to be more like Dan's kind than not. So how could be more upset with Dan's selections?
I don’t think it matters which flavor of false teaching is being discussed. I’d am/would be unhappy with any of them. Dans trying to make this a partisan issue when it’s a false teaching issue.
Absolutely.
Yeah, false is false.
Post a Comment