On more than one occasion, I have been asked the question, “What do you think about Douglas Wilson?” I have been asked this question by individuals who have come to the church I pastor, by individuals who worked for Canon Press (the publishing company Wilson founded), and by individuals desiring to leave the CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches), a denomination Wilson was instrumental in founding. In fact, I have been asked this question enough that I have developed a written response.
This question is not surprising. Doug Wilson has gained substantial influence in the broader Reformed and Evangelical world, particularly with young people. He has increased his influence by founding a denomination, a publishing company, a classical school association (Association of Classical Christian Schools), a K-12 school (Logos), and a college (New Saint Andrews). One might say that Wilson has his hands in a lot of pies.
“What do you think about Wilson?” is a loaded question. When I hear it, I cringe a bit inside and think to myself, “Either my answer is going to really please this person or quickly drive the person away.” When it comes to Wilson, people love him or hate him—there is not much middle ground. Some with whom I have engaged on this question have continued to worship with us, and some have not. And word must have spread, because one young man emailed me and, after informing me he was considering coming to the church, expressed that he had concerns because he had heard that our “fellowship isn’t fond of Wilson.” I suppose the answer to his concern is, “guilty as charged.”
It is not that I dislike Wilson personally (I have never met him). My concern is not with him as a person, but with the faithfulness of his teachings and the fruit of those teachings. My concern is for the individuals influenced by his teaching, the spiritual harm done to them, and sometimes through them. My concern is also with the way he has co-opted the label “Reformed” and the way he is doing great harm to the Reformed Church’s witness in the world. As a pastor, I am called to be a watchman on the wall and an under shepherd caring for Christ’s sheep. I will be held accountable for the souls of those He has placed in my care. I must be faithful to Him and to His Word for their good. And sometimes that means speaking up when I see things that are not good.
In this article, I hope to evaluate the faithfulness and the fruit of his teaching. I also hope to shed light on why I believe so many, particularly young people, are attracted to his teaching. Then I will offer thoughts on how we can pastorally care for those who have been influenced by him or who share his views.
The Faithfulness of Doug Wilson’s Teaching
Wilson claims to be Reformed, and to hold the Reformed Confessions (the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity). But Wilson, and the CREC, should not be considered Reformed, and certainly not confessional. The excellent reason they are not part of NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council) is that his teaching is not faithful to the gospel.
Although I am sure there are things Wilson has written with which we could agree. His core theology, especially about justification, is a big problem. He has been a leading proponent of the “Federal Vision” (FV). This is a faulty teaching that major Reformed denominations in the United States have taken a firm public stand against.
In 2006, the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) Synod approved a position paper which said that Wilson denies justification by faith alone: first, by teaching that we enter the covenant by faith and continue in the covenant by our faithfulness (our works); and second, that baptism actually brings a person into true union with Jesus Christ. (This is why he and many in the CREC practice paedocommunion, i.e., infants and young children partaking of the Lord’s Supper.)
The RCUS report concludes its section on Wilson with these words: “To sum up, if Wilson is going to be clear of heresy, he must renounce his errors and confusion and truly affirm the historic protestant doctrine of justification by means of faith alone apart from works of any kind – including the work of baptism! (…) We believe this report as a whole leads us to no other conclusion than that the teachings of the Federal Vision herein reviewed and critiqued seriously undermine the testimony of the Gospel and are substantially at odds with the Christian gospel. In particular, we believe they promote serious error and represent a deviation from the teachings and doctrines of Scripture and the Reformed confessions.”
To my knowledge, Wilson has not altered his views since 2006, when this report was adopted.
In 2007, at its 35th General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approved “Nine Declarations Against the Federal Vision.” At this meeting, the late R.C. Sproul stood up and said, “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.”
The main difficulty with the Federal Vision is an unbiblical view of the covenants that is not in line with the historic Reformed position. They blur the lines between the visible church (all those who are members of an earthly church) and the invisible church (all those who are truly united to Christ through faith and thus members of the church from Heaven’s perspective), by teaching that all who are baptized are objectively in the covenant of grace and united to Christ. In their system, there are two types of elect people. There are those who have a decretal election (chosen from eternity by God’s unchanging decree) and those who have only a covenantal election (chosen by God to belong temporarily to the covenant community). The decretally elect will never fall away, but the covenantally elect can and do fall away. What ensures that a person is decretally elect? Not faith, but faithfulness. In other words, all members of the church are truly in the covenant objectively, but they must do something to continue in it. If they do not continue in faithfulness, they will fall from grace. Worship in this context is no longer a gathering in which God’s people, by faith, receive from God through the means of grace (word and sacraments), but more of a synergistic event where God renews His covenant with those who remain faithful to it. This “covenant renewal” is formalized by weekly communion. This sounds a lot like Roman Catholicism, which teaches that a person is in by baptism and must continue by obedience and participation in the Eucharist (communion) at Mass. This is why, in the Roman Catholic system, a person must repeatedly receive the sacrifice of Christ. In fact, Peter Leithart (a current minister in the CREC and one of the original signers of the Federal Vision) has publicly called for more unity within the larger church, including with Roman Catholicism.
I am thankful that Wilson is less extreme than some Federal Vision advocates. For instance, he affirms the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, which several of his associates have denied. Although Wilson denies that he believes in “baptismal regeneration,” something close to that, a kind of baptismal half-regeneration (you are in, but not all the way) prevails. Although the CREC no longer use the label “Federal Vision” (it is understandably bad marketing to use a name that every major Reformed denomination has declared contrary to the gospel), they still hold to the teachings outlined in the Joint Statement on the Federal Vision.
What is at stake here is no small, secondary issue, but the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Federal Vision, even in the “Lite” version held by Wilson, denies or at least severely confuses the good news of the gospel. This is the primary reason I never recommend Wilson or the CREC.
In addition, Wilson’s teaching has been seriously challenged on topics like the Trinity, the relationship of man and woman, and slavery. Repeated cases of abuse scandals in the organizations associated with him are also troubling. Serious problems in the content of teaching will show in the fruit that is produced.
The Fruit of Doug Wilson’s Teaching
Connected to the concern about faithfulness is a concern about the fruit of Wilson’s teaching. When the apple tree is rotten, we don’t expect healthy apples. The poison of Wilson’s influence is not confined to the CREC but is seeping out into the broader Reformed and Evangelical world.
The Fruit of Toxic Theology
Bleach is not bad by itself, as it can be used to clean surfaces or to whiten clothes. Rubbing alcohol also is not bad by itself. It can be used to clean minor wounds, remove ink stains, and remove sticky residue. But when bleach and rubbing alcohol are mixed, the results are not good. Together they create chloroform, which if breathed can knock a person out, damage organs, lead to cancer, or even cause death. The lesson—don’t mix bleach and rubbing alcohol.
So it is with Wilson’s teachings. He has brought together a unique combination of four P’s—Patriarchy, Postmillennialism, Politics and Presuppositionalism—which runs the risk of producing a certain type of unhealthy, toxic theology.
By Patriarchy, I am not talking about the biblical distinction between male and female, proper relationship between husbands and wives, or leadership in the church. I am talking about a system that abuses Scripture to place all women below all men, without distinction. In other words, women become, at best, second-class citizens in the kingdom of Christ and in the broader world.
By Postmillennial, I am not talking about the general belief that Christ will return after the millennium or confidence that the gospel will go forth with power in this present age. I am talking about a specific type of Postmilleniallism—Theonomic and/or Reconstructionist Postmillennialism. This type of Postmillennialism comes in a variety of shades and colors, some more radical than others. Included in this type of Postmilleniallism is the belief that Old Testament judicial laws and criminal punishments should be enforced by the state. If Wilson’s Patriarchy seeks to subjugate women, Theonomic/Reconstructionist Postmillennialism seeks to subjugate entire people groups.
By Politics, I am not talking about using our rights as citizens to vote in political elections or hold political office. I am talking about a theological system which believes the goal of Christianity is to establish Christ’s kingdom on earth, through political means, prior to his second coming. And when this is a goal, it is only natural that those who seek to accomplish this goal would also seek to take hold of the place of perceived earthly power—government. Thus there is, in our day, an unholy marriage between politics and Christianity. This movement doesn’t lift politics out of the mud, but it does drag Christianity (and Christ) down into it.
By Presuppositionalism, I am not talking about a specific school of Christian apologetics (which I consider valid), but about a radical presuppositionalism—a view of life in which everything becomes a black/white, us/them, zero-sum game. This radical presuppositionalism causes those under its sway to lose the ability to make proper distinctions. Under this view, it also becomes easy for leaders to use an us/them mentality to maintain control of their followers—keeping them in fear of the pagans “out there” without ever needing to address the problems “in here.”
Just as mixing bleach and rubbing alcohol creates the toxic chemical chloroform, combining these theological ideas runs the risk of creating a toxic religious environment that harms more than it helps.
The Fruit of Contentious Men
Wilson relishes the fact that he is a cantankerous fellow. He loves saying things that are edgy and get people riled up. He prides himself in having a theology that “bites back,” and bite he does. Now we are seeing the fruit of his biting as some in his own camp are biting back at him. At the time of writing this article, there is debate in Wilson’s circles with certain young men who have adopted racist and anti-Jewish views. The recent “Antioch Declaration” is Wilson’s attempt to distance himself from those young followers, but Wilson would do well to ask himself how much he has contributed to their thinking. Paul’s warning in Galatians 5:15 certainly applies here: “But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!”
The Fruit of Church Divisions
I have heard ministers in more than one Reformed denomination lament that young men, even pastors, influenced by Wilson, are causing divisions in the church and even church splits. Scripture teaches us to “reject a divisive man” (Titus 3:10) and that, in the last times, men will come into the church who “cause divisions, not having the Spirit” (Jude 19).
Jesus taught us that we will know false teachers by their fruits. What fruit has Wilson’s ministry borne? Is it characterized more by the fruit of the Spirit: “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23); or by the works of the flesh: “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like” (Gal. 5:19-20)? The reader must judge, but I see a serious lack of the love of Christ.
The Attraction of Doug Wilson’s Teaching
If all of this is true, why are people attracted to Wilson’s teaching? It has a lot to do with our current cultural moment. The “good old days” are gone in America. People pine for simpler days and the traditions of the past.
People are afraid because of what they have lost or might lose soon. The culture has gone topsy-turvy. America is divided more than ever before. Confusion reigns in the minds of many about such simple things as biological sex and the traditional family. Christians are seeing the church, broadly speaking, capitulate to the culture on many issues such as the sanctity of life and biological sex. To give Wilson credit, he has tapped into this fear effectively, capitalizing on the moment to promote his wares. Fear sells product, especially when your product promises a place of stability in an unstable world. In sum, people are attracted to Wilson’s teaching because they fear the world around them and believe that he has the antidote to this fear. Wilson has marketed himself as the strong man who will stand against those he has derided as “effeminate men.”
It should not surprise us that he has gained a following. Many individuals, as they witness the general decline of Biblical morality in the West and in the world, are seeking a safeguard against the coming assault on long-held values. Enter Wilson, with teaching that promises a refuge. “Join me,” he says in effect, “as we push back against the confusion in the culture which sees a man as a woman. It is only going to get worse, unless we do something, and I, unlike those other guys, am brave enough to stand up for truth.” Many receive that message and feel strengthened at first. Even if the toxic blend tastes sweet at first, it soon becomes bitter in the stomach.
A Pastoral Response—Compassion and Clarity
The first response toward those in our churches who are being influenced by these teachings is compassion. Just because someone shares a Wilson quote, reads one of his books, or attends a CREC church does not mean they know what Wilson really teaches. Many have been caught up in something they don’t fully understand. The words of Jude are helpful here, “And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 22-23).
As we minister to young people, we must acknowledge that the world around them is not the world in which their parents grew up. Yet following Wilson is not the way. As we minister to young parents, we must acknowledge that the world “out there” may look scary, and they might have concerns for their children. But the answer is not learning from Wilson. They must be pointed to Christ, who tells us, “In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
The second response is clarity. The most important point to make is the centrality and simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 11:1-5), and how Wilson’s teaching at best obscures the gospel, at worst obliterates it. Like Paul, let us not fail to “warn everyone night and day with tears” (Acts 20:31).
All this is why I warn people away from Wilson and the CREC. The doctrine can confuse people about the gospel, and the toxic fruit can bring terrible consequences.
Rev. Christopher Campbell
Northland Reformed Church
Kansas City, MO