“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20

On November 25, 2003, less than two years after he started the Federal Vision “saloon brawl,” Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, published A Collection of Short Credos in Credenda/Agenda (at that time Blog & Mablog did not exist and Credenda was his chief medium for propaganda). The collection of credos addressed seven points of disagreement that emerged during the controversy:

• On Law and Gospel
• On Justification
• On Faith and Fidelity
• On Baptism
• On Heresy
• On Giving Offense
• On Helping the Heresy Hunt Along

Please note the credo titled On Giving Offense; here it is in toto:

On Giving Offense

1. I believe that few subjects are as badly neglected in the modern Church as the applied field of biblical polemics.

2. I believe that when controversy breaks out in the modern Church, it is therefore likely that all parties to the controversy share certain assumptions about what is appropriate in conflict and what is not, and these hidden assumptions tend to govern their discourse instead of the example and pattern of Scripture.

3. I believe that this hidden compromise of method vitiates the attempts of those believers who attempt to be faithful to the content of Scripture, as well as to the content of their confessional heritage.

4. I believe that in a particular kind of religious controversy the central point is to accomplish reconciliation, and that to fail in this task is to fail in maintaining the spirit of unity in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:2–6). We are to receive one another but not into disputes about debatable things.

5. I believe that in another kind of religious controversy the central point is to give offense, and that failure in such controversy is a failure to give offense in the way Scripture requires. And Scripture demands that we seek to offend willful obstinacy of opinion by ecclesiastical officials in the face of the grace of God.

6. I believe that failure to distinguish these two kinds of controversy, or a flat denial that there is ever a time when giving offense is a spiritual obligation, means in effect, that in the great basketball game between obedience and disobedience, the referees are always on the take.

7. I believe that our Lord Jesus, when confronted with ecclesiastical obstinacy, showed us this godly pattern for giving offense. Did you know the Pharisees were offended when they heard this? (Matt. 15:12). Yes, I did, He replied in effect. Mission accomplished (v. 13). The Lord attacked the scribes and Pharisees for their long robes, sanctimonious geegaws, prayer habits, tithing practices, their ways of greeting, their seating arrangements, their hypocrisies, and so on. After one such exchange (Luke 11:43–44), one of the lawyers said that Jesus was insulting them in His indictment too (v. 45). And in effect Jesus said, Oh, yes, thanks for that reminder. You lawyers . . . (v. 46). In short, Jesus was seeking to offend.

8. I believe that in a sinful world giving offense is one of the central tasks of preaching. When the offending word is brought to bear against those who have shown themselves to be unteachable, they are written off by that offending word. Employing a scriptural satiric bite is therefore not rejoicing in iniquity, but rather testifying against hardness of heart.

9. I believe therefore that in every controversy, godliness and wisdom (or the lack of them) are to be determined by careful appeal to the Scriptures, and not to the fact of someone having taken offense. Perhaps they ought to have taken offense, and perhaps someone ought to have endeavored to give it.

10. I believe that sometimes a fool is not to be answered according to his folly (Prov. 26:4), and those who contradict are to be answered in all gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24–25). In other situations a fool must be answered according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits (Prov. 26:5), and those who oppose the truth are to be rebuked sharply (Tit. 1:12–14; 2:15). Examples in Scripture and church history of men who can do both are not to be thought of as conflicted personalities, but rather as examples of obedience and balance.

11. I believe that true biblical balance in such things is the fruit of wisdom, and that such balance is not usually found in hot-headed young men, who do not know what spirit they are of (Luke 9:55). Consequently, prophetic rebukes should come from seasoned prophets, from men called to the ministry of guarding the Church of God. The work should be done by men of some age and wisdom, and not by novices, firebrands, and zealots.

12. I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is always to be our example in dealing with certain kinds of religious leaders, and that where He has set an example, we must strive to follow Him. Part of this means we must be careful not to be hasty in imitating Him, since His wisdom was perfect and ours is not. It is therefore good to take counsel with others.

13. I believe that sharp rebukes and the ridiculing of evil practices should seldom be the first approach one should make, but usually should follow only after the rejection of a soft word of reproach, or when dealing with hard-hearted obstinacy displayed over an extended period of time. If this is not remembered, the satirist will find himself killing ants with a baseball bat.

14. I believe we must be careful not to let strong language and supposedly-righteous anger be a substitute for good arguments, to be employed when we feel threatened. Strong language must be weighed and measured, and must always have a point.

Special thanks to Jim Jordan for his comments on the above.

Douglas Wilson frames a strawman to define the antithesis between himself and opposition to the Federal Vision. Article 5 states his objective as well as his enemy:

5. I believe that in another kind of religious controversy the central point is to give offense, and that failure in such controversy is a failure to give offense in the way Scripture requires. And Scripture demands that we seek to offend willful obstinacy of opinion by ecclesiastical officials in the face of the grace of God.

The terms “requires” & “demands” exaggerate his case. No such requirement or demand exists in Scripture. Doug Wilson eisegeted this as demonstrated by Article 7, which cites some biblical examples, but no biblical “demands,” for Article 5:

7. I believe that our Lord Jesus, when confronted with ecclesiastical obstinacy, showed us this godly pattern for giving offense. Did you know the Pharisees were offended when they heard this? (Matt. 15:12). Yes, I did, He replied in effect. Mission accomplished (v. 13). The Lord attacked the scribes and Pharisees for their long robes, sanctimonious geegaws, prayer habits, tithing practices, their ways of greeting, their seating arrangements, their hypocrisies, and so on. After one such exchange (Luke 11:43–44), one of the lawyers said that Jesus was insulting them in His indictment too (v. 45). And in effect Jesus said, Oh, yes, thanks for that reminder. You lawyers . . . (v. 46). In short, Jesus was seeking to offend.

Notice the fallacy of equivocation. Originally Doug Wilson claimed that the Lord Jesus gave offense to “ecclesiastical obstinacy,” which was (is) Mr. Wilson’s description of those who faithfully hold Westminster. But then he changed the targets from attacking “ecclesiastical obstinacy” to “The Lord attacked . . . their hypocrisies,” which is different. The Son of God indicted the scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers because they made a big production of their super-sanctimonious hypocritical standards. These religious leaders were not ecclesiastically obstinate, whatever that is; they were ecclesiastical imposters — rank hypocrites — who preened themselves in public for show. And the Lord Jesus exposed their true nature. He didn’t fling gratuitous insults at them for the fun of it, contra Doug Wilson; and he didn’t rely on strawmen, contra Doug Wilson. Mr. Wilson misrepresented Jesus’ treatment of hypocrites as an excuse to publicly insult those who disagreed with him.¹

Also notice that Doug Wilson did not explain what process he used to convict others of “willful obstinacy of opinion.” This is not a small technicality because, after all, he begrudged the RPCUS for not granting him due process, despite lack of jurisdiction. Equally important, he did not say why others should not tag him the poster boy of “willful obstinacy of opinion.” He never conceded error when others corrected him. To be sure, he redefined the word “covenant” to make sense of the Federal Vision rather than admit its heresy. I believe that Article 11 accounts for this:

11. I believe that true biblical balance in such things is the fruit of wisdom, and that such balance is not usually found in hot-headed young men, who do not know what spirit they are of (Luke 9:55). Consequently, prophetic rebukes should come from seasoned prophets, from men called to the ministry of guarding the Church of God. The work should be done by men of some age and wisdom, and not by novices, firebrands, and zealots.

Douglas Wilson pulled rank — he played the “prophet” card. Article 11 contains his only use of the term “prophet” in “A Collection of Small Credos”: “prophetic rebukes . . . seasoned prophets.” And not just any seasoned prophet. He belonged to that class of “men called to the ministry of guarding the Church of God.” The context, as well as the implication, is that God appointed Doug Wilson to protect the church from those who declared the Federal Vision false. Moreover, God gave the “seasoned prophet” of Moscow the weapon of offense to deliver “prophetic rebukes” against the Federal Vision’s enemies. Thus “Scripture demands that we seek to offend willful obstinacy of opinion by ecclesiastical officials in the face of the grace of God” (Article 5) and “Perhaps they ought to have taken offense, and perhaps someone ought to have endeavored to give it” (Article 9).

Setting aside the Mittyesque narcissistic delusions of grandeur, Doug Wilson’s belief in the prophetic office denies what he wrote two years earlier in his book Mother Kirk:

The Church today is not in the same position as the first-century church. At that time, God was still moving in an extraordinary way as He established His apostles as foundation stones in the building of His Church. In the process, the Lord authenticated them in extraordinary ways, giving them a miraculous power. The genuine miracles in the Bible were performed in a way that makes it clear that some of the offices in the early Church were not intended to be perpetual.

For example, Paul mentions that the remarkable sign gifts were linked to a remarkable office. “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12:12). And the author of Hebrews says something similar. “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Heb. 2:3–4). The fact that some offices are not perpetual must be kept in mind when we consider the government of the church in the first century. For example, the partial list of church offices given in Ephesians includes two, and possibly three, such extraordinary offices.” And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11–12).

These extraordinary offices have ceased. The foundation of the apostles and prophets has been laid; it need not be laid again (Eph. 2:20). When building a house, no one pours the concrete over and over again. Foundation work ceases long before work on the building ceases. Consequently, church government today does not include living apostles and prophets. (Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001], 167–68)

So the “seasoned prophet” believes the extraordinary office of prophet has ceased, or at least he did two years before he arrogated the office. Remember the context: Douglas Wilson wrote this credo to justify his abusive conduct toward FV critics (and others). He couldn’t cite the pastorals because Scripture prohibits characters such as Mr. Wilson from entering the ministry (1 Tim. 3). He couldn’t claim that “prophetic rebukes” and “seasoned prophets” was rhetorical flair because the relish still would not justify violating 2 Timothy 2:24–25, which was the obstacle he needed to circumvent:

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.

So he claimed the prophet’s mantle.

Doug Wilson’s creed On Giving Offense is a self-serving rationalization for his sinful behavior. It is also an essential key to understanding not only the Federal Vision controversy but Doug Wilson’s self-perception in general. He reckons himself a “seasoned prophet . . . called to the ministry of guarding the Church of God.” Consequently, he believes that he delivers “prophetic rebukes,” when he “gives offense.” The problem is that just because he’s offensive doesn’t mean he’s giving offense. And more importantly, he’s not a prophet.

¹ Imagine what Jesus would say about a pastor who disqualified John Wesley from the ministry for committing plagiarism even as he mass-markets vast bodies of stolen text under the guise of classical Christian education. Or a pastor who literally wrote the book on oath-taking & oath-keeping, punctiliously documenting each tiny detail required in a proper biblical oath, only to blow the whole thing off when his pet student confessed under oath that he committed multiple felonies. Or a pastor who admitted that if was the devil, he would abolish age of consent laws — and then he waived the age of consent law. Or a pastor who promotes himself as an expert on family even after he presided over the marriage of a serial pedophile and prayed he would father children. These sins do not fall under the category of “ecclesiastical obstinacy”; they’re gross acts of hypocrisy that reveal the pastor’s true nature — he’s a poseur. The Lord Jesus mocked the religious rulers of his day because they postured — just like Douglas Wilson.