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?
