Kevin DeYoung vs Doug Wilson: An Effeminate Critique

Doug Wilson is one of the most controversial figures in Reformed Evangelicalism due to his longstanding prominence and poetic writing style. Most of the criticisms against Doug Wilson are liberal critiques, and Kevin DeYoung’s concerns are not distinct from these. In his article, On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood Kevin DeYoung clutches his pearls and thinks of the children, going after Doug Wilson over his way of doing something.

Kevin DeYoung is writing on November 27 to critique Doug Wilson’s flamethrower video and annual “No Quarter November” which is rather late.

I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual. That’s not meant to be a knock on the smart people in Moscow or attracted to Moscow. It is to say, however, that people are not mainly moving to Idaho because they now understand Revelation 20 in a different way, or because they did a deep word study on ta ethne in the Great Commission, or even because of a well-thought-out political philosophy of Christian Nationalism. Those things matter to Wilson and his followers, but I believe postmillennialism and Christian Nationalism are lagging indicators, not leading indicators. That is, people come to those particular intellectual convictions because they were first attracted to the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies. In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, “We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.”

DeYoung asserts that Doug Wilson is emblematic of the Christian Nationalist and postmillennial crowd. While the latter may be true, Doug Wilson is lagging in the Christian Nationalism debate, responding to it more than he is instigating it. While his beliefs have long been compatible, Christian Nationalism is not his term, not his movement. Christian Nationalists are generally more theologically conservative than Doug Wilson as evident in his debates with Andrew Isker and Jared Moore. So DeYoung’s read of the room and mood are incorrect. The world of Evangelicalism is much larger than Doug Wilson, despite online perception.

First, it strikes a tone that is deliberately sarcastic and just a little bit naughty. No one really thinks Wilson is timid and cautious the rest of the year. That’s the sarcasm. The naughty part is that Wilson uses the words “wussy” and “wuss”—adolescent slang for someone weak and effeminate. These are words most Christian parents don’t allow their kids to use, since the terms probably originated as a combination of “wimp” and another word I won’t mention.

Here we get a glimpse of Kevin DeYoung’s pearl-clutching argument about words that Christians should not use according to him.

Second, the video takes cheap shots at other Christians. Wilson’s sarcastic bite is not first directed toward the wicked, the hardhearted, or the forces of evil in our world. He takes a swipe at the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and at the G3 Conference. Both are conservative Baptist groups—groups, we might add, that would be on the same side as Wilson in almost every important cultural battle. It’s fine if Wilson wants to disagree with these groups; they’ve disagreed with him at times. But Wilson doesn’t mention them in the video in order to make a serious argument. He uses them for a punchline. If you like Wilson you are supposed to think “Oh no, he didn’t?! That’s hilarious.” And if you like the ERLC or G3, you are supposed to be triggered, because if Moscow can watch their opponents get triggered, that is also funny. When serious criticism is leveled at Moscow, the response often includes a smattering of mockery and memes. This isn’t Wilson using his famous “serrated edge” to make a prophetic point against a godless culture. This is intentionally making fun of other Christians for a quick chuckle.

G3 has been debasing their ministry all year, climaxing at their conference when they let Owen Strachan go woke. More obviously, Kevin DeYoung is defending the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. This organization has fought for gun control, fought equal protection for the unborn, and opposed the release of the Nashville Manifesto. It is a liberal organization and has been a subversive force in Evangelicalism for a long time. Kevin DeYoung is running cover for wolves here.

The well-worn critique of the seeker-sensitive movement is apt for the Moscow mood as well: What you win them with is what you win them to. And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears. Pugnacity and jocularity are not the occasional and unfortunate by-products of the brand; they are the brand.

Even more troubling is Wilson’s deliberate decision to use uncouth (at best) and sinful (at worst) language, especially language of a sexual nature. His own denomination has criticized his unnecessarily provocative language, including the use of phrases like “small breasted biddies” and “lumberjack dykes.” At other times he’s used (without the asterisks I’ve inserted) words like d*ck, c*ck, c*nt, a**, b**bs (also here, here, here, and here), t*ts, b*tch (also here and here), gaytards, fa**ot, fudgepackers [for male sex], and circle jerks [a term I had to look up, but I wish I hadn’t]. To my knowledge, Wilson has not expressed regret or repentance for this language; to the contrary, he has often defended its use.

Kevin DeYoung argues that the use of these colorful words is unbecoming and ultimately sinful. This is a misreading of Ephesians 4:29 which instructs that our language be fitting for the need of the occasion for the edification of the body that gives way to grace. Such language that Wilson has occasionally used easily fits these parameters. Moreover, Kevin DeYoung believes that Christians should not use derogatory language about homosexuality which has no biblical basis.

Were I to use these words in public (or in private) I would be quickly confronted by my elders and likely brought before my presbytery for questioning. If I persisted, I would probably be deposed as a minister. And rightly so, for such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking (Eph. 5:4). Which of the Puritans, or Southern Presbyterians for that matter, would have dared to speak this way? What candidate coming forward for ordination could get away with writing in this way? What parent would be thrilled if their daughter’s new boyfriend sprinkled his vocabulary with words like these? If such “prophetic” language is justified for the minister when he is attacking a godless culture, is the language therefore appropriate in the pulpit? According to Wilson’s logic, I don’t see why not. And should we hope to see more pastors employ these terms? Would that be a step toward the saving of Christendom, for Christian ministers to talk more frequently about b**bs and t*ts? In his influential thirteenth-century manual on the training of knights, Ramon Llull insisted that “Courtesy and Chivalry belong together, for baseness and uncouth words are contrary to Chivalry.”

The fact that Kevin DeYoung’s elders and presbytery are more concerned with colorful language that the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn more than they are the fact that DeYoung works for the woke Ligon Duncan or is on the council of The Gospel Coalition is a bigger issue here.

You say that your presbytery would "depose" you if you said some of the things Doug Wilson has said.

But your presbytery would depose most Reformed ministers prior to WWII for things they said. Almost no one on your shelf would survive.

— Stephen Wolfe (@PerfInjust) November 27, 2023

Kevin DeYoung doesn’t like Doug Wilson’s way of doing something. This is fine. He doesn’t have to like it. But Doug Wilson’s way of doing something is better than Kevin DeYoung’s way of doing nothing.