The Moscow Mood

One landscape of the evangelical internet blew up recently when evangelical reformed (Presbyterian?) Kevin DeYoung, leader in The Gospel Coalition, wrote a scathing article against Douglas Wilson and his Christian enterprise in Moscow, Idaho.  He entitled it:  “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood.”  Now Wilson has answered him with an article at his blog:  “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung.”  Many already have written posts on this highly visible skirmish.

I’m not going to give my assessment on this public conflict.  I have a leaning in this intramural fracas, but I choose to center my attention on Wilson, because of something he wrote in his article:

I am a fundamentalist, in that I believe the fundamentals with all my heart. But I am not a cultural fundamentalist, and I am not a schismatic or separatist.

Wilson says, “I am not a . . . separatist.”  Historically, fundamentalists are at least separatists, unless someone wants to redefine fundamentalism.  Usually in the technical aspects of designation or labelling, removing separation makes Wilson maybe a “conservative evangelical.”  Some would argue with even that because of the Federal Vision issue for Wilson.  To put the doctrine of Federal Vision (FV) in shorthand, someone wrote last week:

The FV holds that all who are baptized are objectively part of the covenant of grace.

Federal Vision and Wilson

It’s thick, but you might read the article in which that sentence occurred to try to understand the issue.  The authors entitled the article:  “On Justification, Doug Wilson, And The Moscow Doctrine.”  The same post reads in the conclusion:

As we witness and lament the waning of Christianity’s influence in American public life, Doug Wilson’s rhetoric has galvanized conservative and Reformed-minded Christians who, at the very least, are hungry for a vision of the future that has a strong Christian influence on the culture. Some have left faithful and orthodox churches for churches more aligned with “the Moscow mood,” while failing to discern the real danger of “the Moscow doctrine,” especially with respect to FV and its erroneous doctrine of justification.

People should ask what the Wilson doctrine of salvation is.  Is it confused?  Are paedobaptists such as Wilson preaching a true gospel?  In a google supplied definition of the belief of paedobaptism, I can’t say WIlson would disagree:

Inherent in this view is the thinking that baptism is only rightly given to those who are regenerate, but that in light of God’s covenant promises, children of Christian parents may be presumed to be regenerate from birth, and thereby worthy recipients of the sign of the covenant.

Wilson says he is a fundamentalist and defines it as believing “the fundamentals,” whatever those may be.  What are “the fundamentals” for someone associating with Federal Vision?  Perhaps Wilson read an accusation of fundamentalism in DeYoung’s post.  The words “fundamentalist” or “separatist” or even “schismatic” do not occur in DeYoung’s article anywhere.

Fundamentalism and Separation

I am pinpointing the language of Wilson, “I am not a . . . separatist,” perhaps Wilson equaling “schismatic” to “separatist.”  True churches, which are true New Testament churches, are separatist.  All true churches are separatist churches.  Yet, Wilson proclaims, he is not a separatist.  Even though he is a fundamentalist, he says, he carves off “cultural fundamentalist.”  These are loaded words that Wilson does not define.  What does it take to be a “cultural fundamentalist.”  Wouldn’t someone be a “cultural fundamentalist” today if he opposed same sex marriage and supported delineated male and female roles.

Wilson argues for the patriarchy even greater or more strict than complementarianism.  This is cultural.  He criticizes complementarians as too soft or squishy.  He defends “toxic masculinity.”  He wrote last month:

God has determined that men should occupy the positions of leadership in each of the basic governments that He has established among men. These governments would be those of our civic life (Is. 3:12), our life together in the church (1 Tim. 2:12), and in the family (1 Cor. 11:3). In the first place, He appointed men to take glad and sacrificial responsibility in these areas, and by men, I mean males. In addition to that, He required the males that He placed in these positions of authority and responsibility to act like men, and not simply males.

The distinction, it seems now, between complementarianism and patriarchy is that the former applies only to marriage and the latter to every institution in the world, as represented by Wilson in the above paragraph.  If Wilson is a fundamentalist, he’s also a cultural fundamentalist.

Sine Qua Non of Fundamentalism

Wilson can’t be a fundamentalist, because separation is a sine qua non of fundamentalism.  Fundamentalists separate over belief and practice.  They separate over fundamentals, whether doctrinal or cultural.  A historian of fundamentalism, Kevin Bauder, covers this in his article:  “The Idea of Fundamentalism.”  You aren’t a fundamentalist unless you separate over your fundamentals.

Fundamentalism is a movement that began in early twentieth century United States with institutional separation.  The Britannica entry on “Christian fundamentalism,” describing Carl McIntyre, says:

He argued that fundamentalists must not only denounce modernist deviations from traditional Christian beliefs but also separate themselves from all heresy and apostasy. This position entailed the condemnation of conservatives who chose to remain in fellowship with more liberal members of their denominations.

Later the article on Christian Fundamentalism restates this foundational characteristic of fundamentalism:

By the 1980s fundamentalists had rebuilt all the institutional structures that had been lost when they separated from the older denominations.

The Bible Requires Separatism

Be Ye Holy

The Bible teaches separatism all the way through.  God separated Adam and Eve from the Garden.  He separated Noah and his family from the rest of the world.  He separated the nation Israel from all the surrounding nations.  Separation verses abound all over the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-14).  God by nature is holy and holiness is separation.  God says to His people, “Be ye holy as I am holy.”  He is saying, “Be ye separate as I am separate.”

Wilson defines separatists as both “schismatics” and “cultural fundamentalists,” differentiating from himself.  He gives no explanation for that, apparently thinking everyone reading “just knows already.”  Of the unscriptural belief and practice of Wilson and his institutions in Moscow, Idaho, I reject his lack of separatism, both from the world and from false doctrine and practice.  To explain the catholicity of Douglas Wilson, he advocated for this statement on such:

On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation.

Catholic or Not Catholic

When he says he is not a separatist, ecclesiastically he means he is catholic.  He doesn’t like what he sees going on, but he’s not going to separate over it.  He’ll sit behind the keyboard and fire away, but that won’t stop him from staying together in a spirit of ecumenism with false doctrine and practice.

I thought Wilson’s statement on fundamentalism and separation to be a good teaching moment.  As many readers know, I do not consider myself a “fundamentalist.”  I without apology say, “I am a separatist.”  God requires separation.  Those who obey scriptural teaching on separation are separatists.  Wilson says, ‘I am not one of those.’

Salvation and Separation

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 say:

17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Jesus said in John 8:44, “Ye are of your Father the devil.”  Someone must leave the one family, Satan’s, to join the new family, something shown in Galatians 3 and 4.  The Lord says, “I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,” and who does He say this is for?  Those who come out from among them and be ye separate.  Wilson says, “I am not a separatist.”  Okay.  According to scripture, what does that mean for the ultimate outcome for Wilson?