“Folks who want me to shut up about the PCA sure aren’t acting like they want me to shut up about the PCA.” Douglas Wilson

In the second year of the Federal Vision controversy, the spirit of accusation possessed Douglas Wilson to post A Handy Guide for Navigating Theological Controversies to his personal website. Mr. Wilson floated this so-called “handy guide” as a litmus test to help readers determine which “side” of the Federal Vision controversy was in the right. Mr. Wilson’s questions appear self-serving at first glance but they don’t cut muster on second. He premised them on an interesting mixture of fallacies — part abusive ad hominem, part strawman, part affirming the consequent, and all schnook. Here it is in toto:

A Handy Guide for Navigating Theological Controversies

Topic: Auburn Avenue Stuff

For all those interested second-year seminary students who are watching the varied logomachies being undertaken on their behalf by their elders in the gates of Zion, it seems that someone ought to have prepared a handy guide like this long before now. But they haven’t, and you know how it goes. But you can’t tell the players without a scorecard.

In some disputes, the answer to these questions runs along the lines of “neither,” but in those cases it is best to abandon all interest in that dispute anyway and give yourself to a perusal of Monday Night Football.

That said, here are some basic questions to help keep things sorted out:

1. Which side is capable of stating the position of their opposition in terms that the opposition would own and recognize?

2. Which side is threatened and behaves as though it is threatened?

3. Which side has a donor base that would dry up if they did not point to a “threat to the gospel” to keep the money coming in? Which side has a donor base that would dry up if they successfully preserved the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?

4. Which side takes offense when extreme members of their party are answered?

5. Which side behaves as though it is competing for a market share?

6. Which side is characterized by grimness, and which by gladness?

7. Which side resorts to theological dishonesty in representing the arguments and positions of their adversaries? And refuses to be held accountable for it?

8. Which side looks as though they are trying to position themselves to be the next Ligonier when R.C. Sproul retires?

9. Which side resorts to Bulverisms in accounting for the motives of the opposition?

Answer key:

1. Good

2. Bad

3. Bad, bad

4. Bad

5. Bad

6. Bad and good, respectively

7. Bad, bad

8. Really bad

9. Bad, except when insightfully done, as here

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 8/3/2004 8:37:30 PM

*   *   *

In what follows, I answer Doug Wilson’s questions by quoting from the category Auburn Avenue Stuff on his personal website, because he dedicated Auburn Avenue Stuff to the Federal Vision controversy. Mr. Wilson’s questions are set in bold:

1. Which side is capable of stating the position of their opposition in terms that the opposition would own and recognize?
   

   Click on the image to the right. It’s a screenshot of a blog entry that Doug Wilson posted to his personal website on November 20, 2007, to describe the PCA’s position toward Steve Wilkins. Mr. Wilson titled this blog post “Steve Wilkins, Departing From the Westminster Confession.” Interpreting Mr. Wilson’s analogy, the image depicts the PCA as pirates who hijacked Mr. Wilkins’ vessel (church ) and subsequently murdered him — because he refused to deny Westminster. Personally, I am not convinced that Doug Wilson stated “the position of” his “opposition in terms that the opposition would own and recognize.”

2. Which side is threatened and behaves as though it is threatened?
   

   See the answers to questions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, & 9.

3. Which side has a donor base that would dry up if they did not point to a “threat to the gospel” to keep the money coming in? Which side has a donor base that would dry up if they successfully preserved the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace?
   

   The following two blog posts from Doug Wilson’s personal website get close to point. He categorized both as “Shameless Appeals,” which is the category he uses to solicit financial support from his donor base. In the first example, notice the phrase “crazed heretical slave-owner.” The word “heretical” refers to the Federal Vision heresy. Mr. Wilson capitalized on the FV controversy to juice book sales at Canon Press:

   Publishing Is Warfare

   Topic: Shameless Appeals

   Some of you may have noticed that over the weekend the Canon Press images on my bookrack off to the right went blank. This little glitch on my blog was the result of a major renovation, overhaul and upgrade of the Canon Press web site. I would strongly encourage all of you (and your sisters and your cousins and your aunts) to go and have a look at it now.

   Canon Press is a small publishing house, but the good news is that its influence has been far greater than its size or the volumne of its sales (compared to the big boys at Random House) might indicate. At any rate, I have become convinced that the influential nature of this publishing venture is one of the reasons for the attacks on us over the course of the last several years. The goal has been to get the average customer to think twice before giving somebody a birthday gift written by a “crazed heretical slave-owner.”

   The point has been to get us to spike our guns and depart the field. And the controversy has had some effect in that we don’t have as many guns as we would have liked to have had by this point. But of those we do have, none of them are spiked, and all of them are still smoking.

   All this is to say that things are rocking and rolling down at Canon Press. They have a lot of new things going on, a web site that is far easier to navigate, slick graphics, a burgeoning audio department, and many resources for those who believe, as we do, that publishing is warfare.

   Posted by Douglas Wilson — 11/14/2005 5:01:36 PM

   In this example Doug Wilson pushed a pædo-communion book published by Athanasius Press, which is Steve Wilkins’ outfit. Pedo-communion intersects with the central doctrines of the Federal Vision, such as baptismal union with Christ and baptismal regeneration. This particular title was a multi-author work written by the main actors in the Federal Vision (Doug Wilson wrote the foreword) and, as above, Mr. Wilson capitalized on the controversy to net sales for his “side”:

   Getting A Theology of Kids

   Topic: Shameless Appeals

   Over on the right hand side, on the bookrack, please note the safe arrival of The Case for Covenant Communion, just released by Athanasius Press. In all the “great-is-Diana-of-the-Ephesians” episodes of the last three years, there really are just a handful of root issues — and no, throwing dirt in the air is not one of them. (Incidentally, neither is throwing dirt through a keyboard.) But covenant communion is one of those issues. Whether we will bring our children to the Table and nurture them in the worship of the triune God of their fathers is one of the basic issues in our culture wars. This book promises to make a real contribution to a discussion that really needs to happen. I commend the book to you. No, actually, I would plead with you to get it and read it carefully.

   Posted by Douglas Wilson — 6/28/2006 7:44:55 PM

4. Which side takes offense when extreme members of their party are answered?
   

   Douglas Wilson doesn’t clarify what he means by “takes offense.” But his nose appears bent out of shape in the following quotations, which he directed at the PCA during the Federal Vision controversy. Mr. Wilson wrote the first two quotes after the PCA study committee released its report on the Federal Vision:

   This principle is why people do things that they are willing to brazen out. People brazen it out because brazening it out works. And this is why I intend to bring up the stacked nature of the PCA committee every chance I get, for as long as I can remember to do so. Not only will I do this, but I intend to memorialize it with as many metaphors as I can manage to come up with. That committee was as stacked as a double order of buttermilks, as stacked as some blonde in a tight dress, and as stacked as a brick house. The PCA, she’s mighty, mighty. (The Rev. Rick James, June 22, 2007)

   So what about the point that we (meaning me) mock our enemies? . . . What I mock is Pharisaism. What I mock is stacked study committees, and the long, solemn, indignant faces whenever somebody mentions this screamingly obvious fact. What I mock is the bum’s rush for ministers in good standing with no charges filed, no evidence submitted, no proof offered, just raw power from on high — but plenty of that. . . What I mock is exactly the same thing that we find mocked in the pages of the New Testament — ecclesiastical stuffed-shirt pretentiousness, and an inability to maintain a sense of godly proportion. You know, camels and gnats, gold and altars, and justice and mercy and tithing from the spice rack. You know, justice and mercy and parsing the covenant of works under a meritscope. What I mock are those who are so concerned for merit in the pages of their systematics, but when it comes to any merit their judicial proceedings might be lacking, they don’t give a rip. . . . (Reformed Catholicity, June 24, 2007)

   Doug Wilson wrote these next two quotes as the PCA prepared to put Steve Wilkins on trial:

   One of the things that you all will have to come to grips with is that many in the Reformed world know exactly what play you are running, and have every intention of watching you do it. The fix is in. Biblical justice and due process are clearly not being honored, and it looks to me like the charade will simply be brazened out.

   But I can assure you that it will not occur without a running color commentary from me. After you run your play, we are all going to watch the replay a hundred times, including the tape of the referee who hath eyes to see, and seeth not, and I am going to be John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing. And I will have some particularly ripe comments to go with it. It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents. (Down in our Hearts! November 17, 2007)

   Just as, in the South, you can say anything you want about anybody, just as long as you add the little exculpatory tag, “Bless his heart,” (He’s a lying skunk, bless his heart”), so in Christian circles, you can come sneeveling around with slanderous accusations circulated by anonymous and lying cowards, just as long as you say something suitably pious as an attachment to the slander. “I read on covenantsludge.com that Doug Wilson has coats made for his wife out of Dalmatian puppies, but we must always remember to pray for him even as we report this to the saints, with grief in our hearts, considering ourselves lest we also be tempted.” A little like trying to fix the problem of the dead rat behind your fridge with a little air freshener. . . . So here’s where we are. The SJC was involved in this unnecessarily. The trial, if there needed to be one, should have happened in Louisiana Presbytery. If there wasn’t one at presbytery, then this was the failing of those men who believed a trial to be necessary and did nothing, and not the fault of those who did not believe it to be necessary and did nothing. Because of how irregular this whole thing is, and how obviously it is politically driven, observers are right to be nervous. Any process that could conceivably result in Steve Wilkins being forced out of the PCA for “heterodox views,” as this process certainly could, without Steve ever having a full, complete, open and honorable trial, with a presumption of innocence, is a process that deserves to have honest men everywhere ladle piping hot contumely over the top of its pointy little head. If this kind of vigorous response makes folks feel uncomfortable, then they should stop defending the indefensible. As one commenter on this blog put it, when sorting out a conflict among the kids, what do we think when one child says, “It all started when he hit me back”? Folks who want me to shut up about the PCA sure aren’t acting like they want me to shut up about the PCA. (Dead Rat Behind the Fridge, November 30, 2007)

5. Which side behaves as though it is competing for a market share?
   

   This question riffs off #3 above. Doug Wilson imputes greed to his opponents, or the other “side” as he says; though I am unsure how he divines whom competes for what. Nevertheless, at one point during the controversy Mr. Wilson waxed defensive from the charge of having to protect his market share:

   Apparently, I have a career to save, networks to preserve, contracts to sandbag, a high profile reputation to keep from tanking, and so on. Like Mark Twain, who said that reports of his death were greatly exaggerated, I really have to say a similar thing here. Through no merit of ours, and by His grace alone, God continues to bless what we are connected with, and we are most grateful to Him for it. New St. Andrews is bursting at the seams, Canon Press has a stack of new books at the printers now, Credenda is flourishing, our churches here in Moscow have been continuing to steadily grow, and the CREC is prospering. So my “desperation” for a debate needs to be grounded in something else. . . . (Buckets of Blog Water, October 4, 2006)

6. Which side is characterized by grimness, and which by gladness?
   

   When a man regularly vents his anger by yelling at his windshield, it’s difficult to characterize him as being in a state of “gladness”:

   • Yelling At My Windshield
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Two
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Three
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Four
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Five
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Six
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Seven
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Eight
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Nine
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part Ten
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part 11
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part 12
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Part 13
   • Yelling At My Windshield, Finis
   • Yelling At My Copy of Modern Reformation
   • Talking Reasonably to My Windshield
   • Raising Eyebrows At My Windshield
   • A “Yelling At My Windshield” Reprise

7. Which side resorts to theological dishonesty in representing the arguments and positions of their adversaries? And refuses to be held accountable for it?
   

   This question repeats #1 above, with a slightly different angle. Doug Wilson’s “Craft Morecaroni & Cheese” ad (click to enlarge) in Credenda/Agenda was his first public representation of his adversary’s position. Mr. Wilson resorted to gross dishonesty in the hit job and in his rationalization for it. This telegraphed Mr. Wilson’s commitment to honest representation and it remained his standard throughout the FV controversy. No one in Christ Church or the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches has constitutional authority to hold him accountable.

8. Which side looks as though they are trying to position themselves to be the next Ligonier when R.C. Sproul retires?
   

   This line of thought is bizarre. RC Sproul Sr. was a member of the PCA when Mr. Wilson framed this question, so it’s difficult to believe that the PCA “was trying position themselves to be the next Ligonier when R.C. Sproul retires.” However, this makes sense: “Doug Wilson was trying to positon himself as the next Ligonier when R.C. Sproul retires.” Doug Wilson covets RC Sr’s fame and he projected his jealousy onto the PCA via this question. Envy of RC Sr. is common in the CREC. In April 2007 Mr. Wilson awarded his former assistant Joost Nixon for writing this haiku:

   RC is aging
   who will assume his mantle?
   Bombasticity

9. Which side resorts to Bulverisms in accounting for the motives of the opposition?
   

   In the answer key above, Doug Wilson exempted himself from living by the standard posited in this question, asserting, “Bad, except when insightfully done, as here.” This self-excused hypocrisy probably explains his behavior in his other scandals.

As Doug Wilson wrote, “here are some basic questions to help keep things sorted out” — so hopefully this helped you sort things out. These questions furnish one reason why the Federal Vision has successfully split the Reformed church in North America. It is a schismatic doctrine peddled by a factious man. Douglas Wilson may have renounced the name “Federal Vision,” but I’m pretty sure he has not forsaken his polarizing ways.