The Dangers of Doug Wilson & Mark Driscoll’s Ministry | Theocast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- In today's episode, the guys have a conversation about a very sensitive but important topic: sexuality. Over recent years and decades, there have been various approaches to how to handle issues of sexuality in the church. Jon and Justin talk honestly about their concerns regarding crass and crude language that is used to talk about sex--and the abuses of pastoral authority that often occur (e.g., Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll). The guys also discuss their concerns with purity culture (Joshua Harris comes up here) and the very negative ways sex is portrayed in that kind of setting. There is a better and more biblical approach.
Quotes from Doug Wilson: theocast.org/c...
Semper Reformanda: Jon and Justin talk more about abuses of pastoral authority that occur in the church when it comes to sex in marriage. Then, the guys talk about how we often try to use outside means to address a heart-level problem.
SUPPORT Theocast:
theocast.org/g...
FACEBOOK:
Theocast: / theocast.org
TWITTER:
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
Justin Perdue: / justin_perdue
INSTAGRAM:
Theocast: http: / theocast_org
RELATED VIDEOS & RESOURCES
Sexuality, Acceptance, and the Gospel: • Sexuality, Acceptance,...
Very helpful. Thank you for loving the church and teaching the truth.
Don't care much for Driscoll. But love Doug Wilson and his ministry in Moscow. Canon Plus is superb!
@philipmurray9796 then you must love the things that Doug says like, “When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the
concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”
Still love Doug Wilson and his “ministry”?
Or how about this gem?
‘Second, wives need to be led with a firm hand. A wife will often test her husband in some area, and be deeply disappointed (and frustrated) if she wins. It is crucial that a husband give to his wife what the Bible says she needs, rather than what she says she needs. So a godly husband is a godly lord.’
Wilson, Douglas (2009-04-01). Reforming Marriage (p. 80). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.
@@Vosian292 you might as well just quote Apostle Paul or Peter... They each teach wives to submit and obey their husbands. Do you love and accept their teaching found in the scriptures?
Don’t want to comment on Wilson, huh? I pray you are not married.
If you love what scripture says then look at this. Scripture does not tell men to have a firm hand, but instead encourages consideration to wives,
‘Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.’ 1 Peter 3:7
Excellent as always. As someone who grew up in the purity culture, I have experienced the good and bad that has come from it. Hoping to glean the good bits and discard the rubbish when talking to my daughter about these issues. I loved the ideas you shared about talking to your kids about some of this stuff.
If I ever want an effeminate, mainstream evangellyfish view on sexuality, now I know where to look.
I get how Driscoll was a spiritual abuser and has been crass, I have seen it myself, but Wilson? How is Wilson in this same camp? I don't see it.
There are numerous abuse allegations made against Doug Wilson, not only in his church and schools, but also in churches were his materials are widely read and distributed. His teachings set up circumstances under which abuse can thrive.
@@ExaminingMoscow He only preaches what the Bilbe states. How is that "his teachings"? and secondly how does "setting up circumstances" create abuse? I don't care about allegations, anyone can make an allegation. You need to substantiate that.
@@user-jt2cf9hx6fthe problem is his crass language. He says “women submit and receive. Men conquers, penetrate, and plant.” Wilson himself may not be an abuser, and if side on that thinking. Yet, we should note that pastors shouldn’t seek to use language that may incentivize flippant attitudes toward other people. I’m not saying we need safe spaces. I’m happy to say women are the weaker sex and men are the leaders. Yet, I’m not okay producing material claiming that “women make all the sandwiches”. Which he did do.
@@user-jt2cf9hx6fexamining Moscow is simply an opposition research arm and they’ve got an axe to grind… probably a “discernment ministry” run by disgruntled man-hating women… IDK 🤷♂️
We didn't put names on the title...we're not try to just get clicks." 21:17
😅
*Literally puts names in the title
They're clueless 😂
Yeah I caught that immediately. Bad look
Agreed, these two are full of shit.
Completely unhelpful.
Get outa here then
Reach out to Wilson. Have you asked him about what he wrote? I doubt it
Bummer, fellas. Ya might consider it ‘helpful’ to actually back up your claims against another when you name them publicly. Kind of crude and crass, actually, to not.
Here is the problem, to do so would mean we would need to quote something we don’t feel comfortable repeating. All of their material is available publicly to read.
@@THEOCAST I understand that, but now I'm left with the problem to go diving for the content I don't know about. Maybe it's more helpful to teach what you think is right and leave name calling out of it, if you're not willing to give good examples to back up your claim. It leaves me feeling less confident I can trust your guidance when it's delivered this way.... Thanks for hearing.
Agree. These guys illustrate the weird pietism that make Doug’s blunt critique necessary. Calling someone a misogynist without documenting the claim is so obviously devious, it destroys whatever interest anyone might have in their perspective.
What a truly spineless and pathetic response. @@THEOCAST
@@YARDMAN-g6hthat has been their response to a lot of claims they have made - they refuse to give specifics and just say "it's out there, we don't need to give support"
Guys I encourage you to take a closer look at Driscoll. There isn't just the crassness. There are other problems. You may not be a fan of Julie Roys. I'm neither a fan nor a hater of JR.. But she did a report on Driscoll with former members of his new church (in AZ, I believe, not sure). They came across very believable. If what they say is true, there are much bigger problems with MD than crass language. It is pretty widely accepted that he was paid about $800K a year to wreck Mars Hill. Now he's busy enjoying being platformed again, using church money to protect himself and threaten people who would speak up. You guys seem to be strong on research and there are only 24 hours in a day. I think this one is worth the time though, when you do free up some time.
I actually think it's good to call out those by name who are teaching in the wrong way, I feel no need to look these guys up, but pray that anyone who is confronted with them will now tread carefully armed with the understanding we now have. I would however love some more in depth teaching on the topic itself as I am one who was brought up in a church that swept any discussion of sexuality under the rug. Any direction on where to find this would be greatly appreciated. God bless!
I dont think what they said describes Doug Wilson, I listen to alot of his stuff.
This just came across my feed .
To have Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll in the same thunmbnail - insinuating equivalence - is bordering on despicable and certainly misleading 🤦🏼
This is periously close to an unsub 🤔
They don’t need you anyway
It's false witness. It speaks more to their worldview of sanctimoniousness than to the crassness they're so much "worried" about.
"We're not doing this for clickbait, We're not putting names in the title". Looks like that's exactly what you did. Next time your going to throw someone like Wilson under the bus, how about a few examples in context, or how about you guys get the stones to invite Wilson on to defend himself. Like ⁷an earlier comment, lumping Wilson in with Driscol is very disappointing.
Wilson has written a lot. No need to ask him, he’s already stated his beliefs. He’s a serpent and he denies the active obedience of Christ imputed to believers. He’s anti christ and you are being deceived.
Giving generalities is bogus!
Call Wilson - why don’t you have a discussion with him
Brothers!!! Well balanced and well said. :)
They are biased as you are it seems.
Thanks for having this conversation, guys. So much damage has been done and it needs to be brought to light.
You 2 hipsters couldn't be more wrong. But at least I watched for 15 minutes before giving to my nausea from your utter BS..
Wow guys, very disappointing, up to now your information and sharing was so refreshing and on point. But now you gotta jump on the disparaging band wagon that is so infectious on the internet. To lump Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll in the same bucket hardly seems fair. Just stick to Reformed Theology and The Word, there is plenty of edifying topics for the saints without going where the others go, that being down low.
Right on.
Yeah can't compare the two. I immediately found it strange.
Disagreed vehemently, listen again. Listen to their video on Is Doug Wilson a heretic?
Yeah. As soon as you disagree with my pet pastor, you gotta shut your mouth. Open sincere discourse is a true disappointment.
(Sarcasm, of course)
Did you actually watch the Video?🤔
I think I"ve said this a few times- but my issue with a critique like this is precision. If I haven't, I wanted to make this clear here: You're putting a cloud around Wilson particularly, in a way that should be very easy to substantiate more precisely than I've seen you do so. If Wilson's view of sexuality is tilted, then doing a systematic book-by-book breakdown should be very easy. Start with his Reforming Marriage, work through Future Men, walk through Nancy's works, go back through My LIfe For Yours.
I know this video's a year ago- if there's a recent video where you did something above, please let me know. Speaking as one of those college kids that Jon influenced as a college pastor, who respects your ministry, even if I disagree with you here.
Importantly, if you can't preach a sexual ethic that normalizes the right application of speech, like Ezekiel 16:35-59, and, that understands the normative purity within covenant membership that is intense like Song of Solomon, even while being self-controlled in explicit gendered ways, means 37:40 isn't something that's uniquely different from Wilson.
If the issue is not his tone, and a real concern over binding consciences, then precisely show where Doug's off. My reason for enjoying his teaching is precisely because he's concerned to be biblical not only in terms of systematics, but in terms of pragmatics- that is, not just in terms of being orthodox, but having orthopraxy and sounding like Jesus or Paul or other saints in their rhetoric. It just seems that, Jon, you've really taken "purity culture" and created a generalization about legalism, when covenant faithfulness is an embodied faithfulness with embodied wisdom frameworks.
Because faith is gendered, and because gender is embodied, it's not legalism to suggest particular behaviors as normative manifestations of faith. You're doing that around 39:00 above. To say something "doesn't sound like light" or to suggest that Paul "doesn't use this language," at least with Wilson, sounds like a sandpapered Bible. There are explicit passages in Ezekiel, Paul, Solomon, all written by the Spirit of Jesus, that we need to be able to take as part of our sexual ethic as Christians.
There is a great deal of documentation out there demonstrating Douglas Wilson‘s misogyny, including his own writings, which regularly demean and sexually objectify women. He also holds concerning news on America’s Antebellum chattel slavery era, and has enabled several sexual predators, including officiating the arranged marriage of a convicted pedophile to a woman in his church. You can find this documentation with a Google search.
This!!! 👆
When Paul says "I owe: they who are troubling you are going to cut themselves off", exegetically, we have no indication that he is referencing emasculation. Rather, what is in view in the rhetoric, is apparently circumcision. Just as foreskin is cut off and cast away, so also our sins are cut off and cast away, and so also those who falsify the Gospel are cut off and cast away. God The Gust was making, through Paul, an actual spiritual point; the Holy Gust was not being pointlessly crass. Paul is rhetorically saying "If they are so gung-ho for circumcision, then they must expect to be likewise cut off and cast away".
I see no exegetical indication that emasculation ever comes into view in the letter, and for adults (such as the believers whom the heretics trouble), the cutting off of foreskin was a significantly drastic surgical cutting off of something, which very sufficiently justifies the specific word choice used, and leaves one with zero cause to presume the Holy Gust was being pointlessly crass just to be insulting, when rather we see plenty of indication that circumcision is the main rhetorical theme, and we see that the saying then has spiritual meaning and comes together to make perfect sense.
I hope people are not sentimentally attached to the crass characterization of this passage. I would like the Church to come to correction in regard to this point of exegesis.
Love all the Wilson defenders. I guess it's totally fine and above reproach for Wilson to do the following:
1) Actively defend reviling language that the Bible condemns (calling women the c word).
2) Use the b word to refer to women.
3) Use provocative and demeaning language to refer to women.
4) Use the n word in connection to Jesus's own words and use that as a defense of racial insults!
5) Oh and still actively endorse Federal Vision heresy by remaining in a denomination that affirms it, still holding to its main tenents and failing to call out one of its worst heretics (Rich Lusk) who is in his same denomination.
Other than that, Doug's wonderful. So qualified....sooooo above reproach.
Biased fellows are never to be trusted.
This was good for me.
Thank you!
When the mores of the world begin defining theological view , insidiously, it becomes sin from the pulpit. I am not a reformed doctrinal position being myself Arminian but have found enormous agreement with Pastor Wilson or Mark Driscoll.
I am sure of your salvation and dedication but realize you lack instruction in Biblical man and woman relations. Further I think any spiritual leader does little to lead the lost to Christ while discussing an internal church instruction externaĺly. The lost will only hear "These Christians are divided because they are a false and cultists social group. I think that at least contextualize and more properly place these discussions within s closed and internal group who are in need of this instruction.
When the word misogynist arrives any Biblical reference falls short just as a knee jerk. Because the condition is modern Socialism and NOT a Biblical approach. Rather like a minister describing groups of people as the masses or "prols." It is just not Christian understanding.
I think you missheard them🤔
Disappointing gentleman. If you are not willing to provide specific evidence against the men you are accusing, why with this unbiblical effort name names. You have a past proven history of doing a great job of addressing a topic without the names. You have tarnished your influence by addressing an important topic in this way.
Unfortunately this is very typical with going after Doug. Platitudes and generalities and nothing specific. This whole thing is so strange to me. I understand how he makes people uncomfortable but the efforts people are going to make him seem like a heretic or meanie is interesting
@@robpeterson1157 This was years ago . . .I have direct experience with Wilson. Briefly, know . . .Wilson and others (like N.T. Wright) have been thoroughly researched, properly and extensively interacted with, marked and declared to be promoting the "Federal Vision" -- a serious threat to the Gospel. Westminster Theological Seminary, etc. Do the research your self. Scripture commands to "expose evil . . " Ephesians 5:11
Thanks for the reply. Would you please provide me some more information to look into this further? It is truly fascinating to see the firestorm around Doug Wilson and Moscow and based on what I have seen so far I just don’t get it. Seems to be just silly that people accuse him of things then he will openly refute what they say and offer to discuss with them and just crickets. Do you really think that Vodie, John Piper or John MacArthur would be associated with the Canon+ platform if all these accusations were true???!
I truly appreciate the genuiness of the reformed label as well as being baptists
One thing that's troubling is that when it comes to the topic of marriage, the church seems to view nearly all single men as immature. Newsflash: there are many immature couples and many mature singles. Speaking as a guy, marriage should not be a requirement or a perquisite to becoming mature. Many single men have their lives together and they are certainly not sinning by being single.
Um…you claim that Doug Wilson is…misogynistic? Without giving any support?? How is that fair or appropriate? Or am I not allowed to ask that because I am a woman?
There is a great deal of documentation out there demonstrating Doug Wilson’s misogyny. A Google search on this would be helpful for you, I think.
I am a woman; years ago, having direct interaction with Wilson. Yes, Mr. Wilson is a dangerous, racist, misogynist, false teacher. He deliberately teaches "federal vision" heresy (google what it is) and is basically a "cult leader" type character. Wilson's theology is like "putting socks on an octopus". IMO I encourage every christian woman to KNOW theology and be able to discern false teaching, especially if anyone is instructing household matters. 2 Timothy 3:1-14
But you did add names in your title. I don't understand.
✅ good video
I knew there was something off about you guys. This video solidified it. All your claims and accusations, zero examples or quotes. the reasoning behind it is "its too innapropriate". You guys are wack and this is cowardly.
This was interesting and I think you guys have a good start on tackling this subject. I totally agree with you in that yes; there's the "carnal education" (even if coming from well meaning people who profess belief) and there's the "purity education". Neither of which are helpful to anyone.
I also agree with you that "in all that you do; do unto the glory of God" addresses EVERYTHING in our lives. "Guard your heart for out of the heart comes the issues of life." And the expression of sexuality is certainly an issue of life that comes out of the heart.
Jesus himself dealt with this subject too as an inherent composite of his/His human existence. The desire to obey the command to "be fruitful and multiply" didn't exclude the Son of God. Quite to the contrary; Jesus had to deal with it in the context where if he was going to fulfill the plan to redeem sinners; he didn't' have the option to get married. His only option was to remain contained in the space of his own prayer life between him/Himself and the rest of the Godhead.
It's a subject that's ultimately unavoidable because we are infused with a command (given to all life = "be fruitful and multiply") that is embedded within the framework of us being made in the image of a creative God; whom one of the parabolic representations of His goodness (to all life even) is this reproductive process. At the point of every day that God created something; He said "it is good"; which means it pleased Him. It gave Him joy.
Now the thing I've VERY RARELY ever heard anyone "catch" is that the sacrificial relationship (in this case between a husband and wife) isn't actually an exercise in how do I please this other person. It's a joining of intention of the couple to glorify God. We are to be grateful to Him for everything that comes forth from the expression of this aspect of our lives. (Which frankly should take the "performance pressure" off the individuals engaged in the act.
Marriage isn't desired by all (or even possible for some). I have a young adult developmentally disabled son. Currently he identifies his "sexual orientation" as "asexual". He is male, there's nothing biologically wrong with his development into manhood; yet, as he is not capable of taking care of a wife and kids; he has limited prospects if he ever did decide he wanted to be in a relationship with a female of similar developmental state. We've talked about crossing the road of the subject of sterilization if he and a "helpmate" ever find each other.
We've also talked a lot about glorifying God in our dealing with our own "heart issues of life" as single people related to sexuality. (I'm his mother and I'm a widow.) And here's another caveat of this I don't think I've ever heard any Christian ministry address. (Except; ironically "para-church" ministries dealing with clients who are trying to extract themselves from sexual addictions.) The "gift of singleness" does not automatically equate to "lack of desire for an outlet of sexual expression" (or desire for companionship even). All of us at some point in our lives have to live in a season (or sometimes several seasons) in life where we deal with singleness.
Which the "no sin is private" comment misses the fact that all of us as individuals face the issue of our personal glorification of God is always an "issue of life" that arises from the individual heart. Marriage doesn't sanctify our sexuality; God does. HE is the only One who can! Because just like any other aspect of our lives; the expression of sexuality is obviously affected by both the fall, as well as our own individual sin.
And I would say it's impossible to engage in things like adultery, solo engagements with porn / fantasy, serial fornication relationships, or abuse of another; if one is earnestly praying through the act itself. No temptation has taken any of us that God.....has not provided a means of escape.
@Ben Q. - "Burning with passion" for what though? Is it because they can't control their sex drive? I don't think that issue of self control is what Paul is talking about.
People desire to get married for reasons other than sex; and that should be the case. And if one burns for reasons of wanting companionship, wanting a family, wanting to be part of a larger family (extended family), economic stability and all those other types of benefits than; let them get married.
But if one can't control themselves sexually, then they need to address that between themselves and God. Marriage doesn't sanctify one's sexuality; only God does. Because invariably if you get married to satisfy the lusts of the flesh; you're going to have problems in your marriage. Out of the heart comes the issues of life and that's an issue of life that needs to be addressed.
@Ben Q. - Have you gone and looked at the Greek of that verse. It's not actually saying marriage is a cure for one's lack of sexual control.
Is it a pragmatic way of handling lack of self control or is it actually a veiled warning?
Or can it also apply to how one may interpret "contain"; as opposed to "burn"?
"Contain" comes from two words that mean "no" and "power, dominion or strength". Whereas the opposite is commanded. A believer is to rule over their own flesh. That is a fruit of the spirit.
And "burn" actually implies to be purified by fire. It comes from the base word "lightening".
Now take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. Verse 9 is addressing "unmarried and widows"; whereas 36 is talking about "any man" and a "virgin".
I've seen all kinds of weird interpretations for verses 36-38. Some claim this is talking about a father and his daughter. Which if a father is "behaving uncomely toward his virgin (daughter)" they got bigger problems than whether or not she gets married.
Yet compare "passed the flower of her age" (meaning she's no longer a virgin) "and by need.... let them get married..." (Compare to Exodus 22:16) Note verse 36 says "he has not sinned".
So... premarital sex with a virgin is not "sin" but premarital sex among people who'd once been married; (but are now" unmarried and widows" is? (For they may "burn" for not "containing"?
What's the difference (in terms of "the law") between someone who's a virgin and someone who's not?
Go back to Exodus 22:16. That passage doesn't say anything about anyone being a virgin; it just states they can't be betrothed to someone else.
So, is it "OK" that virgins "can't control themselves" or is Paul addressing two different issues here?
Is it better to marry than be "purified by fire" for one's "lack of self control"?
Yet, go back to the word "contain". That word is also translated "temperance". And can one be "not temperate" in their desire for something other than sex?
If what someone who'd been married before really wants is companionship (or a family), (or some other type social benefit); it's better to be married than chastised for intemperance. (I guess that would depend on the strength on the interpretation of the word "contain"?)
Again though, marriage does't sanctify someone's sexuality. Only God can do that.
Although still, there is nothing wrong with someone who wants to be married for reasons other than they can't control their want of sex.
If sex is really the only reason someone gets married; than that marriage is going to have major problems; because invariably those with lack of self control aren't going to stay in that marriage because eventually they will become "bored".
And thus because of their lack of being able to rule over themselves and gain victory over the lust of their own flesh; if they do belong to God, they will be chastised.
That's a different paradigm though than the natural drive to "be fruitful and multiply"; because that by nature entails children, family and spouses who are committed to each other.
Do you see the difference?
@Ben Q. Define "fornication". Clearly in Exodus 22:16 the people aren't married.
"16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."
(Note, no one is being stoned for violating the law in this instruction though clearly they are not married and had sex.)
Same with 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 Do you really think that passage is talking about a father lusting after his daughter?
And why the difference between "unmarried and widows" "not containing" and "burning" but "a man and his virgin" it states that he has "not sinned" though it is "needful" for them to get married? (Refer back to Exodus 22:16)
@Ben Q. - get out a concordance and dig through what those 3 verses actually mean.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
(Note: she's "pass the flower of her age" ... "and NEED SO REQUIRE" Need so require what? The outcome is that they get married. Why are they required to get married if they hadn't already had sex? If they hadn't had sex, there's be no "need so required" to get married. (Exodus 22:16) "He hasn't missed the mark; let them get married.")
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
(Now note the comparison of the guy who "stood stedfast in his own heart" "HAVING NO NECESSITY; but having power over his own will". And he's "kept his virgin" (she remains a virgin). It's not necessary for them to get married because they haven't had sex. Again, go back to Exodus 22:16)
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
(Now what does this verse mean? He that "gives her in marriage" or already haven "given" unto the point of the wedding night; i.e. this marriage was consummated before the ceremony took place. "does what is morally appropriate" is actually what "does well" means. (Again Exodus 22:16. That is prescribed in the law; if you sleep with your virgin; you better marry her!) But "he that gives her not in marriage" or has not "given" unto her until the ceremony has taken place "has done the more noble thing".
P.S. I'm glad you don't hold to that weird father interpretation.
@Ben Q. - Must have something to do with God's definition (as opposed to man's definition) of "fornication". Again, look at Exodus 22:16. Another example that clearly they had sex before they were formally married.
Go back to Genesis. The first command given to all life was to "be fruitful and multiply". Maybe God's definition of "marriage" is predicated on sex?
Do you think before there were 100 people on this planet there were formal wedding ceremonies?
In early Native American culture, "marriage" was determined by which Teepee the young man picked. If he looked in a bunch of Teepees and found the woman he wanted as his life partner; they spent the night in the Teepee and the rest of the tribe knew at that point that these two were a couple. Many tribal societies did it that way.