Calling someone a Pharisee is kinda the Christian version of comparing someone to Hitler. Everyone flings it at each other till it becomes meaningless.
I still think we can compare the specifics of what Jesus didn't like about the Pharisees with how we may be acting, and while rejecting Him was the biggest issue. I think what is worth meditating on is how Jesus critiqued how the Pharisees mistreated people because it maps on to the prophets critiques of God's people in the OT or Paul's critiques of the Corinth church's communion (and many further points of time in church history you see the same spirit crop up).
And ironically it may be my biggest criticism to not just Doug, but most of the fundimentalist/nationalistic tinged Evangelical camp. Just the level of cynical contempt towards people who disagree... and to excuse it as we are in some special age (as if it is worse than the martyrdom Jesus and the whole early church faced), so we can throw off pansy notions of loving our enemies. Well it's a dark pattern in history we've seen before.
In MLK's sermons about loving your enemy he addresses the common belief that Jesus was being hyperbolic. Martin Luther complained about how Christians mistreated Jews (saying how if the gentiles had been treated the same, they wouldn't have become Christians) until he of course turned violently anti-semitic at the end of his life, semi inspiring the holocaust rhetoric in future Germany.
Also the Hussites proto Protastant revolution turned bloody and into a civil war, but one radical faction broke away from the two sides fighting their brothers into a Pacifism based on the sermon on the Mount (led by Petr Chelčický).
The point being, any arguement that we are past winsomeness because of an existential threat ignores the bloody perseverance of Saints across history, or countless missionaries who chose love and self sacrifice and trusted in God's power, not force, to change the hearts of their enemies.
This is but one of my criticism of Doug's line of ministry, but I too don't want to waste so much energy going down paths that get me riled up, especially since that is not the main philosophical worry in my context in Poland. Best of grace in your context, and I hope we can find those ways to love those we disagree with in these rage bait times.
I have spent a fair amount of time with the "wilson/moscow" types. The best way to understand them is to view them like your ordinary trump voter who "don't take him literally, but they do take him seriously." Kinda like when your hanging with the bros and they're talking smack, but don't really mean it. As far as I can tell, they are mostly good folks with the same kinds of problems that every other Christian has.
Focusing on an academic distinction between Pharisees who rejected Jesus and modern Evangelicals is missing the forests for the trees. Anyone who has been in church long enough knows of the existence of Christian Pharisees.
Hi James. I'm open to the possibility of missing the forest for the trees. I recently became aware of Michael Reeves' book Evangelical Pharisees, and I'd like to read it.
I think my primary argument stands, though - there are some Christians who use Jesus' treatment of Pharisees to justify the condemnation of Christians they disagree with on secondary issues. I see some people from pretty much every theological camp doing this. I've done it myself. And I think we're failing to follow the model of Jesus when we do this.
I don’t think you’re right that the Pharisees were apostates, because Jesus still commands the people to be careful to do everything the Pharisees say. In fact, I can’t think of a single time Jesus sides against them doctrinally. If anyone was apostate at time, it was the Sadducees. And although the Son of God had come, by His own description they still sat on the Chair of Moses.
Hi, Eric. Thanks for your thoughts, but I fail to see that.
Jesus clearly disagreed with the Pharisaical understanding on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1–21). They repeatedly question his authority and teaching through the Gospels. They repeatedly ask him for miraculous signs to prove who he was. They claimed his power to cast out demons was a demonic power (Matthew 9). And they conspire to crucify him, rejecting him as the Messiah.
I would say it’s someone who willfully separates himself from the people of God.
I’m not saying the Pharisees weren’t deeply wrong in their evaluation of Jesus, just that they weren’t wholesale phonies, because Jesus Himself recognizes their authority. The jump that Protestants are prone to making is from “This person is horribly abusing their office” to “therefore they no longer hold that office legitimately.” But Jesus does not seem to take this approach. He had all the information you cite and STILL told the people to obey them because they sit on the Chair of Moses. The Pharisees do not cease to be the legitimate (though deeply dysfunctional) leaders of the Jews until the Church is established.
The simple fact of the matter is that Doug Wilson is an attention-seeking gloryhound. I see the damage his teachings have done all the time, not living all that far from Moscow. Heck, I see it in my own church. Give me TGC anyday.
I certainly share your concerns, John. That said, I do want to be careful of engaging with Doug Wilson and those like him with their same method of communication. We can skip the name-calling. I really would like to see more bridge building than bridge burning within evangelicalism right now.
Calling someone a Pharisee is kinda the Christian version of comparing someone to Hitler. Everyone flings it at each other till it becomes meaningless.
I still think we can compare the specifics of what Jesus didn't like about the Pharisees with how we may be acting, and while rejecting Him was the biggest issue. I think what is worth meditating on is how Jesus critiqued how the Pharisees mistreated people because it maps on to the prophets critiques of God's people in the OT or Paul's critiques of the Corinth church's communion (and many further points of time in church history you see the same spirit crop up).
And ironically it may be my biggest criticism to not just Doug, but most of the fundimentalist/nationalistic tinged Evangelical camp. Just the level of cynical contempt towards people who disagree... and to excuse it as we are in some special age (as if it is worse than the martyrdom Jesus and the whole early church faced), so we can throw off pansy notions of loving our enemies. Well it's a dark pattern in history we've seen before.
In MLK's sermons about loving your enemy he addresses the common belief that Jesus was being hyperbolic. Martin Luther complained about how Christians mistreated Jews (saying how if the gentiles had been treated the same, they wouldn't have become Christians) until he of course turned violently anti-semitic at the end of his life, semi inspiring the holocaust rhetoric in future Germany.
Also the Hussites proto Protastant revolution turned bloody and into a civil war, but one radical faction broke away from the two sides fighting their brothers into a Pacifism based on the sermon on the Mount (led by Petr Chelčický).
The point being, any arguement that we are past winsomeness because of an existential threat ignores the bloody perseverance of Saints across history, or countless missionaries who chose love and self sacrifice and trusted in God's power, not force, to change the hearts of their enemies.
This is but one of my criticism of Doug's line of ministry, but I too don't want to waste so much energy going down paths that get me riled up, especially since that is not the main philosophical worry in my context in Poland. Best of grace in your context, and I hope we can find those ways to love those we disagree with in these rage bait times.
Well said. Thanks for your thoughts.
I have spent a fair amount of time with the "wilson/moscow" types. The best way to understand them is to view them like your ordinary trump voter who "don't take him literally, but they do take him seriously." Kinda like when your hanging with the bros and they're talking smack, but don't really mean it. As far as I can tell, they are mostly good folks with the same kinds of problems that every other Christian has.
Does Doug actually refer to them as Pharisees? Did I miss it in the post above?
I did not bring this as explicitly into the article as I should have, but I I linked an article in the post above where Doug Wilson accuses the "evangelical establishment" for being deeply Pharisaical. Here it is again: https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/sin-is-bad.html
Focusing on an academic distinction between Pharisees who rejected Jesus and modern Evangelicals is missing the forests for the trees. Anyone who has been in church long enough knows of the existence of Christian Pharisees.
Hi James. I'm open to the possibility of missing the forest for the trees. I recently became aware of Michael Reeves' book Evangelical Pharisees, and I'd like to read it.
I think my primary argument stands, though - there are some Christians who use Jesus' treatment of Pharisees to justify the condemnation of Christians they disagree with on secondary issues. I see some people from pretty much every theological camp doing this. I've done it myself. And I think we're failing to follow the model of Jesus when we do this.
I don’t think you’re right that the Pharisees were apostates, because Jesus still commands the people to be careful to do everything the Pharisees say. In fact, I can’t think of a single time Jesus sides against them doctrinally. If anyone was apostate at time, it was the Sadducees. And although the Son of God had come, by His own description they still sat on the Chair of Moses.
Hi, Eric. Thanks for your thoughts, but I fail to see that.
Jesus clearly disagreed with the Pharisaical understanding on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1–21). They repeatedly question his authority and teaching through the Gospels. They repeatedly ask him for miraculous signs to prove who he was. They claimed his power to cast out demons was a demonic power (Matthew 9). And they conspire to crucify him, rejecting him as the Messiah.
How would you define "apostate?"
I would say it’s someone who willfully separates himself from the people of God.
I’m not saying the Pharisees weren’t deeply wrong in their evaluation of Jesus, just that they weren’t wholesale phonies, because Jesus Himself recognizes their authority. The jump that Protestants are prone to making is from “This person is horribly abusing their office” to “therefore they no longer hold that office legitimately.” But Jesus does not seem to take this approach. He had all the information you cite and STILL told the people to obey them because they sit on the Chair of Moses. The Pharisees do not cease to be the legitimate (though deeply dysfunctional) leaders of the Jews until the Church is established.
Thanks for your perspective. I’d have to marinate on that a bit. But glad for your thoughts.
The simple fact of the matter is that Doug Wilson is an attention-seeking gloryhound. I see the damage his teachings have done all the time, not living all that far from Moscow. Heck, I see it in my own church. Give me TGC anyday.
I certainly share your concerns, John. That said, I do want to be careful of engaging with Doug Wilson and those like him with their same method of communication. We can skip the name-calling. I really would like to see more bridge building than bridge burning within evangelicalism right now.
A fair point. Frustrating given the tactics of Wilson himself, but I consider myself duly chastened.
With great affection, mind you!
we love nqn, don’t we 🤣🤣🤣
I would not describe myself as a fan. 👀
i’m aligned with him theologically, for the most part, but that’s as far as i go with him 😂😭😶
HAHAHAHA dwdw it was sarcasm