What to think of Doug Wilson?

It's now time for a post called "What to think of Doug Wilson?" If any readers of this blog exist, they may or may not be aware that Wilson is a somewhat controversial figure in reformed and evangelical circles. Either he is a great guy with a robust and beneficial ministry in Moscow, ID or he is a horrible man and a fraud. Any kind of neutral or moderate view of this topic is tough to come by. So let's look at the issues, shall we?

But before we do, I will just mention that I really don't expect I'll convince anyone whose mind is made up about Wilson to change it. I mean, maybe, but I should admit up front that isn't the main objective of this post. I'm more doing this "for the record," and for something to look back on and see if my views have changed later. There is always room for that.

There can be little doubt that the Wilson and the ministries with which he is or has been affiliated (including Canon Press, The CREC, Logos School, Credenda/Agenda, and more) have been very productive, and have benefited many people all over the place. There are many reformed people who can only look at the "bad stuff" with Wilson and therefore want nothing to do with "anything that comes out of Moscow." That is being reactionary, and an over-the-top response. With any person or movement, one has to be objective and produce a fair assessment of both good and bad. That is what I am going to attempt here. However, for the purpose of cutting to the chase, the bulk of this post is about the controversial points.

The major points of contention people have with Wilson are as follows:
1. "Racism"/"defending slavery"
2. Plagiarism in some books he has co-authored
3. Proponent of Federal Vision theology, which is inferior and confusing (at best) or heretical (at worst) relative to traditional reformed theology
4. "Married off" a convicted child molester (Sitler)
5. "Sided with the perpetrator" in a rape case involving a courtship gone awry (Wight)

Let's take those issues one by one.

1. I am convinced Wilson is not a racist. To be an actual racist he'd have to be a lot more overtly racist. It was from Wilson that I first learned that God struck Miriam with leprosy when she objected to Moses taking a Cushite (Ethiopian) wife. There are, and have been for a long time, black people who are members of Christ Church. It would be insulting (and passive-aggressively racist?) to them to suppose they had been duped or similar.

The slavery thing is a bit more complex. I would at this time stop short of entirely endorsing Wilson's views on slavery. I appreciate his commitment to scriptural authority as it pertains to the need to deal with difficult passages. The main change I would make from Wilson's view would be to understand slavery in the OT according in the context of the Israelites eliminating giants from the land of Canaan. The reason God allowed them to be enslaved and/or destroyed would have been not just for their wickedness, but to eliminate the genetic lineage of the Nephilim. One could argue we don't know with certainty that all these people were fully human in the traditional sense. That view does not work for someone who does not hold to the "supernatural" view of Genesis 6, but I think it all adds up. So while I don't quite agree with Wilson on this, it's easy for me to see that his view comes from an effort to maintain the authority of scripture.

Now having said that, I also find Wilson's blog posts discussing matters of race and slavery to be the most tiresome and least interesting of his output. It's not that I don't care. It's just that the topic doesn't interest me. I've pretty much heard his point on the matter over and over again and tend to think "can we move on already?" But I suppose that's not happening until the people he is interacting with no longer have a problem.

2. I grant that it looks fishy when, on separate occasions, two of Wilson's co-authored books contain obvious examples of plagiarism, yet in each case Wilson claims the other author was responsible for it. However, I withhold judgment not knowing what the evidence would show. It certainly may be that Wilson's claims are true here. In favor of Wilson, no plagiarism has been detected in books authored by Wilson alone, of which there are a great many.

3. This is a large and complex topic. Suffice it to say that I am convinced Federal Vision is, at minimum, not a serious threat to reformed orthodoxy; even while I would certainly differ with some things various persons associated with it have said. All in all I would point out that A) Wilson's theological teachings are for the most part excellent, being orthodox with no problems I can detect, and B) it's hard for me not to see FV as a distraction from the real threat to reformed orthodoxy, which is liberalism. Those persons with concerns about Wilson's doctrinal orthodoxy ought to take more time to listen to his sermons.

4. I'm saving the best two points for last. What to do with a convicted child molester who repents, and wishes to marry? I am of the view that this should not be permitted. According to God's law a just punishment for his crime would be death. It is my conviction at the time of this writing that Wilson acted with a lack of wisdom in marrying this person because of the obvious consequence that children will result, whom he will inevitably be spending a lot of time with, and who will be in a position of vulnerability.

But "lack of wisdom" is as far as I will go. And I go there rather cautiously, knowing that my own personal level of wisdom may not be spectacular, and knowing I can only view this situation from some distance. But the best one can do is to call things as one sees them. At minimum this man should certainly be restored to full fellowship in the church, and ministered to rather than shunned. Some of the accusations relating to this case are way over the top and inappropriate. In some blogs and we sites it is said that this individual has re-offended following his marriage. There is no hard evidence of this, and a fair assessment requires presumption of innocence. Others paint Wilson in such a bad light that it almost sounds like he himself committed the crime. This does violence to the texts of scripture which plainly say "each shall be put to death for his own sin" (or, in a society where the death penalty is not in view, each shall be held to account for his own sin). Accusations such as "Wilson should be in prison" are ridiculous. The worst crimes one may legitimately accuse Wilson of would be failing to protect the innocent and acting with a lack of wisdom.

5. And it's really the same for this case. Wilson seemed rather muddled on who the victim was in the Wight case, and it is baffling to me that he has been unable to produce an apology similar to that written by Peter Leithart, for his misjudgment. It may be that he doesn't want to give an inch of ground to the haters. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that half of the family who was involved in this mess still attends Christ Church to this day, apparently thinking Wilson was (more or less) in the right. This tells me there is more to the story than meets the eye, and I am not close enough to the situation to get a fair picture. Some have wanted to reduce this issue to relatively simple terms when in reality (even with tons of information out there) we still don't know enough to see past our biases. But, in any case, there is again room for the idea that Wilson acted with a lack of wisdom and failed to protect the innocent.

Wrapping things up here, the big question is how much should these issues bother me when considering Wilson in general? Should we throw all things Wilson and Moscow out the window because of these issues? I am inclined to say no for a couple of reasons. For one thing the reason these cases are so well known is that Wilson has put Christ Church in the spotlight by preaching boldly in terms most pastors are afraid to use. If these cases had happened in any other church we would not be hearing about them. Additionally, if we are to judge a ministry by its fruit, my best honest assessment is that the ministries affiliated with Wilson and Christ Church have produced far more good fruit than bad, and have impacted far more lives positively than negatively. The sheer volume of good stuff coming out of Moscow is a force to be reckoned with. This does not vindicate Wilson at all points, but it cannot be ignored.

The scriptural principle to be kept in mind here is "by their fruits you shall know them." I'm persuaded the ministries affiliated with Wilson have blessed many people - tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands - through their far-reaching publications and books. They have contributed much to the development of Christian education, which is hugely impactful. It's not that I don't care about those who were harmed. I'm just trying to be as objective as I can. I'm seeing a little bit of bad and a lot of good. So I guess I mostly like Doug Wilson. It doesn't mean I trust him, but is it ever wise to put your complete trust in a fallible person?

Book Review: Giants, Sons of the Gods, by Douglas Van Dorn

Book Review: Giants, Sons of the Gods, by Douglas Van Dorn (2013, Waters of Creation Publishing, Erie, CO)

Some people read books and are immediately persuaded by whatever case the book is making. Once I “ran into” a young lady on Facebook. She had read Keith Mathison's book on postmillennialism and was persuaded by it right away, which she announced upon joining a Facebook group named for the book. Then she started reading earlier reformers and quickly got to Turretin, who persuaded her of “historic postmillennialism” (a bit of a misnomer for what I call pre-enlightenment futurist premillennialism). Then she read books on exclusive Psalmody and became persuaded of that, regarding the use of “man-made hymns” in worship as a “very grave error.” Then she read books about why “federal vision” is heresy and was persuaded, but was also unwilling to discuss the matter and will not talk to anyone with an interest in honest engagement about it. At the rate she is going she'll soon be residing in an echo chamber containing only herself and her books. I suppose we may give her credit for enjoying reading.

But enough about her. I don't read books to be persuaded by them. Mostly, I read books when I am already persuaded of a particular view (often through discussion, interaction, and experience; as well as Bible reading and study) and wish to broaden my knowledge and understanding about the topic. Such it is with this book about giants in the Bible. At the center of this topic is the much-debated text of Genesis 6:1 – 4, and the nature of the nephilim. I have remained consistent over the years in my view that the nephilim were the result of angel-human interbreeding, ever since I first paid any actual attention to this text back in college. I maintained this view because it is what flows from a natural reading of the text. The opposing view, that “sons of God” refers to the Sethites, never gained much traction in my mind; primarily because it fails to account for the existence of the nephilim (in short, how do giants all of a sudden come from normal humans?). It only takes a little bit of cross-referencing in the Bible to find that the word nephilim refers to a race of giants. It also only takes a little bit of cross-referencing to know that angelic or supernatural beings (at some level) are meant by the phrase “sons of God.” If I were reading any other book it would be hard to conclude the author intended only a natural union of humans with their offspring, as the “Sethite view” supposes. Of course, now I have many more reasons to support the correct view, most of which are touched on at some point or other in this book. The Sethite view seems like a classic case of commentators failing to recognize the author's (Moses') literary intent in favor of striving to make everything found in scripture fit a preconceived systematic theology with (in this case) no room for things like giants, angels marrying, and super weird stuff.

On the whole I would review this book very positively, despite a few writing style idiosyncrasies and not-quite-logically-obvious charts. The author is a no-nonsense reformed baptist pastor with a high view of scriptural authority and reformed soteriology. The book is very extensively researched and heavily footnoted. Anyone looking for absurd or novel interpretations of scripture passages isn't going to find it here. The author has truly done a huge amount of homework and remained faithful to sound exegesis of God's Word.

The discussion about giants in the book resolves around the combination of 1) scripture exegesis, 2) other ancient texts and 3) additional external sources. Concerning #1, the author could be accused of “exegetical maximalism” but not, in my opinion, to an unreasonable extent. In general I find paying extra close attention to scripture text to be useful, if done with integrity and caution. Concerning #2, the author made it clear that the use of other ancient texts can shine a lot of light on how scripture was understood by its immediate recipients, and how common concepts carried over between various ancient cultures (albeit with significant differences). Concerning #3, much of the extraneous discussion, but not all, is found in the appendices and footnotes. A possible criticism of the use of these sources might be “why can't we just stick to scripture alone?” However the book handles these carefully enough, as it is always plenty clear what is drawn from scripture and what isn't, and the justification for bringing in other sources is always apparent. It is noted that people use other sources (especially commentaries) all the time to study scripture. In short, none of this bothers me because it's all very straightforward. The author makes all sources clear. He is also very honest about expressing doubt where conclusions (both from scripture, nd other sources) are questionable.

Some important particulars touched on by the book including the following: 1) The existence of the divine council and its implications was noted. It was a couple chapters in before this was mentioned; personally I believe this is foundational to a good understanding of Biblical cosmology from which related topics flow. 2) The idea that myths are not merely frivolous imaginings of our ancestors, but convey distorted versions of ancient truths, was acknowledged. This is very important especially given the remarkable number of common themes in myths of various cultures all across the world (especially flood traditions). 3) The author offered a good explanation for why not all ancient texts are totally useless or false. This is found in the first appendix. 4) The author was clear that people in ancient times were not stupid but discerned matters according to the best of their ability. A modern pretentious element has crept into a lot of Christian thinking nowadays where people have the idea that somehow we are more clever now thanks to the benefit of science (and perhaps, at some level, an evolutionary component). Although it is true that we have learned much they didn't know, the idea that the ancients' wisdom and worldview were without value is to be rejected. Furthermore, there is much we don't know today, and can never know, about what the ancients knew, and what they did with that knowledge.

The book is structured as follows. It starts with a lengthy introduction explaining and defending the “supernatural” view of Genesis 6, which is defended very thoroughly, simultaneously rejecting the Sethite view also very thoroughly. After the introduction, numbered chapters mostly follow scripture chronologically, going into some detail about the various episodes in the Bible where giants are found. However there are a few detours into other topics including exciting things like demons and chimeras. Also within some chapters are a few random side trips, thought experiments, photo albums of stone circles, and the like. After the last chapter one finds four helpful appendices. All in all it works pretty well. But I think if I were to approach this topic I would change a couple things. The material in the first two appendices is very important because it explains how extra-Biblical ancient texts (1 Enoch, for example) inform our understanding of scripture and relate to it. The skeptic may want to read this first before dismissing half the book as based on “extra-Biblical” evidence. Additionally, very strong support for the supernatural view of Genesis 6 is found in 2 Peter and Jude; this is not covered thoroughly until the second appendix. The other thing I would want to see would be a more extensive discussion of the divine council (see, for example, Ps. 82) right at the beginning of the book. Although I am not the expert, my sense is that (once again) many of these related cosmological topics flow from a clear understanding of the divine council, and not vice-versa. Modern Christian thinking is polluted with what Evan Wilson has called an “incipient dualism,” in which people think there are no other “god-like” beings other than God and Satan.* There are plenty of places in the Bible where other gods are found, and having actual power over their own domains, not just in people's imaginations. Of course, these are created beings, who are corrupt (Ps. 58:1) and subject to the ultimate authority of the one true God.

Although the author is probably not postmillennial (certainly not explicitly so), he starts to sound like it in a few places, particularly the chapter entitled “Victory.” There are certainly many themes that point this way throughout the book, which is inevitable given the nature of the topic and how scripture handles it. However, I have yet to see a book that really ties it all together: all the way from the divine council or governing princes, to the fallen angels, the nephilim, demons, and Christ's ultimate victory and displacement of these lesser gods upon his ascension. (This book emphasizes the giants, as per the title, and there's nothing wrong with that.) Postmillienialism has as much to do with Christ's triumph over these gods, who had a measure of actual power over the nations of the OT era, as it does with the fate of Christianity as it pertains to people on the earth. Even the New Testament is full of this language if you're paying attention to it (Acts 17:22 – 31, for example). And Satan now holds no more power over the world than the other gods everyone has forgotten about.

Finally, and somewhat tangentially, I'll mention one of the more interesting theories found in the book, which has to do with dinosaurs: namely, that they were not creatures God made “after their own kind” (as in Genesis 1) but that they may have been hybrids or genetic experiments bred by the nephilim (or perhaps even the corrupt creations of angelic beings? You know, like Morgoth [in the Tolkien legendarium] made orcs as a mockery of elves. Must fiction be stranger than the truth?). Thus, dinosaurs were not brought onto the ark, as it was God's will to destroy them, since they were not made after their own kind; rather, “all flesh had corrupted itself” (Gen 6:12). It's fairly obvious that most dinosaur skeletons were of creatures in traumatized (drowning) positions when they died. This seemed like an absurd idea at first but the more I have reflected on it, the less crazy it sounds. Also I should add that after a quick internet search, this view is much more widespread than I would have guessed. I didn't know about it until reading this book but now I think it is rather convincing. If this is true then perhaps paleontologists should stop giving new species names to every dinosaur fossil they find. Gorgonopsis must have been an earlier prototype, or something.

I give this book five out of five stars. Will it convince a skeptic? Perhaps not. But those already holding to the supernatural view of Genesis 6 will be equipped with a much deeper understanding of the topic. One is of course free to reject a few ideas here and there that may seem a bit far fetched. And if you are new to the topic and open-minded, this exposition of what you have not noticed in scripture may just blow your mind. Just don't be persuaded all at once!

*This comes from a very important essay on the topic, entitled “The Governing Princes,” found in The Forgotten Heavens: Six Essays on Cosmology, edited by Douglas Wilson, Canon Press, 2010.