Who gets to define the boundaries of acceptable language in Christian circles? Why does the Christian community appear to be divided by the use of strong language? Join me and my co-host, Pastor Dan Burkholder as we tackle these thought-provoking questions. In this episode, we interrogate Kevin DeYoung's critique of the so-called 'Moscow mood,' as embodied by the outspoken Christian leader Doug Wilson. Delving into the discourse, we dissect DeYoung's arguments, offering our own insights, as well as Dr. Joe Rigney's insightful response article.
Language, it turns out, is more than just words—it's a powerful tool that reflects and shapes our reality. In our conversation, we take a hard look at the use and reception of strong language in Christian circles, especially in relation to Doug Wilson's language choices. We couldn't help but wonder: Why the inconsistency in reactions to Wilson's words and those of others in Christian leadership? It's a fascinating discussion that you won't want to miss.
But we don't stop there. We take on the thorny issue of division within Christianity and the role language plays in it. We explore the concept of evangelical softness and question whether prioritizing being 'nice' over boldly proclaiming the Gospel is a disservice to the faith. Finally, we touch upon the importance of credibility in discussions, urging the need to separate emotions from arguments. It's a substantial, thought-provoking discussion that challenges the status quo. Tune in for an enlightening discussion that promises to open your eyes to the dynamics of Christian communities, language use, and the pursuit of truth.
Sign up for Barbell Logic.
Place your meat order with Salt & Strings.
Visit PremierBodyArmor.com and use promo code HARDMEN for 10% off your order. Got questions? Reach out to customer service or send their President an email directly at alex@premierbodyarmor.com and speak to him yourself.
Contact Private Family Banking Partner at banking@privatefamilybanking.com to set up a free private consultation and get started building wealth now and unto future generations. "For a free copy of a new book "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" by Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey, go to www.protectyourmoneynow.net
Who gets to define the boundaries of acceptable language in Christian circles? Why does the Christian community appear to be divided by the use of strong language? Join me and my co-host, Pastor Dan Burkholder as we tackle these thought-provoking questions. In this episode, we interrogate Kevin DeYoung's critique of the so-called 'Moscow mood,' as embodied by the outspoken Christian leader Doug Wilson. Delving into the discourse, we dissect DeYoung's arguments, offering our own insights, as well as Dr. Joe Rigney's insightful response article.
Language, it turns out, is more than just words—it's a powerful tool that reflects and shapes our reality. In our conversation, we take a hard look at the use and reception of strong language in Christian circles, especially in relation to Doug Wilson's language choices. We couldn't help but wonder: Why the inconsistency in reactions to Wilson's words and those of others in Christian leadership? It's a fascinating discussion that you won't want to miss.
But we don't stop there. We take on the thorny issue of division within Christianity and the role language plays in it. We explore the concept of evangelical softness and question whether prioritizing being 'nice' over boldly proclaiming the Gospel is a disservice to the faith. Finally, we touch upon the importance of credibility in discussions, urging the need to separate emotions from arguments. It's a substantial, thought-provoking discussion that challenges the status quo. Tune in for an enlightening discussion that promises to open your eyes to the dynamics of Christian communities, language use, and the pursuit of truth.
Sign up for Barbell Logic.
Place your meat order with Salt & Strings.
Visit PremierBodyArmor.com and use promo code HARDMEN for 10% off your order. Got questions? Reach out to customer service or send their President an email directly at alex@premierbodyarmor.com and speak to him yourself.
Contact Private Family Banking Partner at banking@privatefamilybanking.com to set up a free private consultation and get started building wealth now and unto future generations. "For a free copy of a new book "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" by Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey, go to www.protectyourmoneynow.net
This episode of the Hard Men Podcast is brought to you by Premier Body Armor and by Private Family Banking. Welcome to this episode of the Hard Men Podcast. I'm your host, eric Kahn, and in today's discussion we're going to be talking with Pastor Dan Burkholder and myself about the recent Kevin DeYoung article that was really critiquing the Moscow mood. As we jump into the discussion, I do also want to give a quick plug for an article that came out from Dr Joe Rigney on the American Reformer, and this was titled On Satire Moods and what we're Known For.
Speaker 1:For those of you who don't know, dr Rigney is one of the fellows up at New St Andrews. He's teaching there at the school. We've had him on the Kings Hall podcast and I think this was a really helpful response. It's sort of like everything that I would have wanted to say if I was more eloquent and clear-spoken, as Dr Rigney is, so we really appreciate that. We'll link to that as well in the show notes, but do want to make you aware of that If you were one of the people who was saying what is a really cogent response to the criticism of Moscow and the Moscow mood, I think this is a very, very helpful piece, so I'd encourage you to check that out as well. Welcome to this episode of the Hard Men podcast. I'm joined today by Pastor Dan Burkholder. This is sort of a pugilist, dan.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, I was surprised when you said Hard Men podcast. I know I thought it was a pugilist.
Speaker 1:It's going in the main feed.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah. Usually you only have me on when it's behind a paywall, where not many people are going to listen, so that should just give you an idea the quality of this episode to expect.
Speaker 1:Yeah, let me tell you why. It's behind a paywall, because we're protecting everyone from how spicy Pastor Dan is. No, we have a great time in the pugilist. So this is a good taste of what you might get in the Patreon exclusive show. We've been going through William Gooch, one of my personal favorites. We recently did Keswickian theology, yeah yeah, which somebody sent a comment. This was about adoption stuffs, but somebody sent a comment, so this is really tied to Keswickian theology and I thought honestly. My first response was that seems really obscure and boring. And then we started reading and learning and it was like no, this is actually fascinating, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it was Kind of like two-tiered Christianity. Yeah, multi-tiered Christianity, where if you do certain things, then you've reached a higher plane of Christianity and this is like which sounds crazy, but people actually believe it.
Speaker 1:Crazy but real. Yeah, big. If true, the kids say these day yes, yes, they do say that Little big. If true, dan, people can join today on Patreon for as little as $5 a month. They get full access to the Pugelist, which is normally a Patreon exclusive show $5 a month, as little as With inflation.
Speaker 2:I don't even bend over to pick up a $5 bill anymore.
Speaker 1:I don't even bend over. That's so true. The other day I was $2 on the ground and I was like not worth it At my age. Like what's my flexibility? One of these kids? One of these kids, I'm throwing my back out. It'd be $35 or more at the chiropractor if I do that 35, man, what chiropractor you go to.
Speaker 1:I know exactly, dan, we are going to jump into this episode. Today we are actually talking about something that I find to be very interesting. Everybody's kind of this has kind of been the water cooler talk, and I thought maybe just the water cooler talk for pastors or guys like us. But this week we found out a lot of people in our church are actually asking us about an article that Kevin DeYoung wrote, really as a critique of Moscow, idaho and Doug Wilson. So, for people who are not aware, we just want to give you some basic details to catch you up, and then in the episode we'll start to impact some of the things that Kevin says as well as our responses. So people were asking us like what should we think about this article? Do you think it's good, do you think it's bad? How should we read it? And so, pastorally, we wanted to respond, hopefully in a way that's helpful.
Speaker 2:Yeah, honestly, when the article was published, I had multiple people come to me and say have you read the article? What do you think about it? And I'm like I saw it was published. I didn't prioritize it, but since so many people asked about it, I've done the homework.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I did talk to the other pastors as well and pretty much everybody had heard and was asking for a pastoral input. What do you think about this article? I also think that this is a really helpful point because a lot of people will say why are you guys, your pastors? Why are you, why are you involved in Twitter? Why are you involved in X? Why are you involved in what's going on on social media? And I think it is really important because this is sort of the Agora. This is the marketplace of ideas in today's world. It impacts our people and so we want to lead as best we can pastorally through these situations.
Speaker 1:So, just like at the dinner table, if your kid comes home and he said, hey, I read this article, what do you think about it, I'm generally going to respond that means I have to go read the article, which was actually how this one happened. I hadn't read it until I heard from others, like, hey, did you see that? So just on that front, yeah, agree, disagree. Like, because a lot of people I've seen a lot of people say pastors shouldn't be on Twitter or pastors shouldn't be involved in social media. You agree that that's the Agora?
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, like it or not, it is, because it is the marketplace of ideas. Whether you participate in it or not, it is still forming culture. It is forming worldview. Yeah, it is forming the way people think about issues, about news topics, about theology, even as we'll see in this episode. How do you think through piety, how do you think through use of language, how do you think through mission and cultural engagement and things like that? Whether you participate in it or not, it is actually forming culture around you, so you can either be ignorant of it, which is some people should not be on social media, and that's fine. I'm not very active on social media, but it is forming culture. That's just a fact. And so why would you not want your pastor involved in the formation of culture and of people and of ideas? It seems like that's a question you should have to answer.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that's really helpful. So the article by Kevin DeYoung was titled on Culture War, doug Wilson and the Moscow Mood and it appeared on Clearly Reformed, which is Kevin's web. Clearly Reformed, yeah, clearly Reformed. It's clear, yeah, it's clear. And this is where Kevin started blogging. I believe in March 2022, he left the Gospel Coalition, had been blogging there, didn't say much about his exit, but did say that he would be at Clearly Reformed. I believe it's ClearlyReformedorg where you can find that article, or just go on Twitter and it's pretty much in any of our feeds. It is worth noting as well that Kevin is still on the council at the Gospel Coalition, though he is no longer blogging there. His old blog post as well RemainUp at TGC.
Speaker 1:The article is essentially, as I said, a critique of Doug Wilson and his brand of cultural engagement. This is really Kevin DeYoung is part of. He's probably the middle right of Young, restless and Reformed. He was involved in the Gospel Coalition. Obviously, he was a council member there, which on Piper, tim Keller, other people. He's probably more of the conservative complementarian. He's a Presbyterian PCA guy. He is more conservative, but keep in mind, he's still part of kind of that middle movement and so I think what you're seeing with Doug in this engagement here is that a lot of those guys for a long time have been very uncomfortable with the tone, the sharpness of cultural engagement from Doug. Now Doug did in fairness respond on Twitter initially or ex if you will by saying that DeYoung's article was thoughtful and respectable as a critique and he encouraged his people to meet it with reasonable response, especially people who consider themselves in Doug's corner.
Speaker 1:Justin Taylor, some of you may not be familiar. Between two worlds he is one of the, I guess, chieftains of publishing over at Crossway. He's been there for a long time, close with John Piper as well, for many, many years and he was pretty outspoken in critiquing Doug, criticizing Doug for use of language. We'll get into that as well. That's sort of the general lay of the land and I guess I'll add this Doug Wilson I'm sure most of our listeners are familiar with Doug but if you're not, doug is a pastor of Christchurch, ian Mosco, idaho. He's written on the blog and May blog for many years and Doug's rhetoric is definitely especially for kind of like. If you're a middle white called middle, kind of middle conservative, white collar, pca, opc guy, you would say Doug's language is spicy. If you're a blue collar American, I don't think you would actually think it's that spicy. But it kind of depends where you're coming from. So in respectable reformed camps, particularly if those camps are tied to academia and white collar professions.
Speaker 2:Clearly reformed camps.
Speaker 1:The clearly reformed camps. Yes, that's right, they would call this language spicy, so I want to dive into it. I guess my question for you first of all, overall reaction. I'm not saying knee jerk because we've had time to think about it, but kind of what is your overall take? For people who are like okay, you know, I know you're going to get into detail like this, like general response to Kevin's article.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I can recall my knee jerk reaction, since I read it yesterday and there had been so much noise around the article and it had been built up and I'd been asked about it and so I was expecting something. Yeah, it's kind of like when you go to a movie and someone's like this movie is amazing, it's great. Your expectations are high and often you'll be disappointed, as was the case with me. I read the article and at the end I left feeling like where was the substance? Yeah, where was the substance of this article?
Speaker 2:And the thing is you and I both have read a lot of critiques of Doug Wilson, believe it or not. Some people don't care for Doug Wilson and I have my own thoughts about Doug and I respect him, I think you know we have. He's made a big influence on my life, on even the pastoring of our church, you know. So I also have my own critiques and I think there are actual critiques that Kevin DeYoung could have landed, but I don't think he did that in the article. I left thinking that in his criticism of the mood of Moscow, he used an equally emotional argument to try to counteract it, and so it was. It left me feeling like there wasn't a lot to critique, since it was without substance.
Speaker 1:Yeah, when I first saw it before I had read it I first saw the article, I saw that it was from Kevin DeYoung. I've tracked him for a long, long time and, yes, I recognize he's more conservative but always been associated with the Gospel Coalition. He left. He has never said boo about them. And so I was like, yeah, I'm sure this article will be garbage, but I'll give it a read, and you know I've. You know I read it and I've had a few days to think about it now and I think my initial impression like I think this is going to be garbage kind of changed into no, this is actually a dumpster fire. And then I started thinking about, as more and we'll get into this as more and more has come out and you start to see things for what they are, I actually became angry. You know, as Brian says, we want to have a tight leash on our anger and have a tight leash on our fuse and we wanted to turn it to being productive, doing righteous things, not just being unrighteously angry. But when you actually start to look at, for example, as we'll get into the ways in which Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung are, like I just don't like your potty talk and I'm like you know, kevin, I don't like the fact that you have sat by and approved of the Gospel Coalition, which has run articles like the Gospel according to Taylor Swift. To describe this is Trevon Lacks to describe the ways in which Taylor Swift breakups are like the Gospel, that they would run that. And Kevin stands by on the sidelines and now he's like oh, doug, I don't like your tone, I don't like your words. So that's kind of where I was at with the article. Like you got, this is a joke. The Gospel Coalition has been a joke for a long time. The same people kind of like we talk about with GK Well, no, no, it's a CS Lewis right, where he says they're running around with fire extinguishers when there's a flood, like they're out here, tone, policing, while the culture is burning down and people want to cut your kids, jen, to tail you off. Yeah, and they're like well, you know, doug, you saw a little bit of a harsh word and you know the culture is not going to find us very winsome for that. So those are kind of my initial thoughts on the article.
Speaker 1:As you said, I do want to jump into some of the specific arguments. Sure, fundamentally, the article starts well. I guess I'll get the compliments out of the way. Kevin is somewhat fair in saying that he appreciates how Doug is willing to take unpopular opinions, so I think that is helpful. He says he offers the world and the church an angular, muscular, forthright Christianity in an age of compromise and defection. On top of that, wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ. I think that's true. Yeah, it's one of the main reasons we respect Doug, and so I find that fair. That's pretty much. The compliments for Doug are pretty short and then we kind of get into the negatives. Okay, so we'll go through some of these.
Speaker 1:One of the things I found interesting he started by saying he sees the attraction to Moscow as primarily visceral. More than intellectual or theological, people are attracted to the cultural aesthetic. I'm quoting now the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies and quote Kevin uses business terminology here to say that Christian nationalism and post millennialism are lag measures, not lead measures, meaning like they're just kind of a byproduct. This is what comes after. What's really driving it, he says, is a cultural aesthetic and a political posture. I guess just to start with this one fair critique correct. Do you think that, like it's Kevin right about this?
Speaker 2:I mean, there is an element of it that is correct, but it's not the only reason why people would be attracted to Moscow. One of the biggest attractions that he that Kevin kind of throws a bone at is the institutions that they've built. He mentions, like you know, classical Christian education as one of the things. What people don't understand and that's the same reason that people are attracted to Ogden is that there is a cultural aesthetic and a political posture, if you will, that is coming out of different cultures. I mean this is true, but it's not grounded in nothing. People don't move somewhere like Moscow because there's some fancy political theory or because there's some pie in the sky, post mill, you know, cornucopia of health, wealth and prosperity, and so they're going to go there. No, people don't work that way. People don't work that way. It's actually because it's grounded in something real. The message is coming out of something that's actually been built institutions, and there's fruit there, and you can see evidence. People aren't stupid.
Speaker 1:Well, I think a lot of it. If you follow some of the things Kevin also says in the article, he'll say things like you know, Doug is naughty. He refers to him as like this naughty posture. He says Wilson's approach depends on a fundamentally oppositional framework. If you've ever read Tim Keller, by the way, in his manifesto Doug is the anti-Tim Keller right. He is continually confronting the culture. He is doing it on grounds that Keller would have called like fundamentalism, that's like sexuality. These are all the things in Keller's latest manifesto. He's like we need to get away from that. Tim Keller says in there. I've quoted a bunch on Twitter. But he says in his manifesto Christians need to learn how to talk to the world in a way that most unbelievers would find non-offensive. And here you have okay. So Keller Gospel Coalition.
Speaker 1:He forever was partnered with Kevin and young. It's not all that surprising that Kevin is saying this. But you can also understand why they're. You know they have a gag reflex to Doug Wilson, because Wilson is like it's pretty in your face, like these are the issues, here's what's wrong, and he's going to confront them pretty directly. I think where Kevin is wrong here is I don't think he truly understands the level of intellectual theological horsepower that most of the people actually are attracted. So I was thinking this the other night we're gathered with just some blue collar people in our church. In fact, I'm doing the math, they're all blue collar people that I was talking with and they're like asking me in-depth questions about postmill theology, about pedobaptism, about any number of theological political issues. And I was sitting there thinking like, wow, I need to make sure I do the reading and keep up with the reading, because these guys are like welders and plumbers and they are giving me a run for my money. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Like I did the reading seven years ago, but I haven't read something. I gotta come back to this.
Speaker 1:So I think to me this kind of feels like a pot shot being like, well, it's not intellectual, it's just visceral, it's just, it's just cultural aesthetic. I don't. I don't think it actually has to be either, or I think it's both things.
Speaker 2:It's also I think it's a fundamental miss at what drives humanity, what drives especially men, and men are one they're attracted to courage. Right, they're attracted to courage. So that is a cultural aesthetic, in a way. Courage is, courage is.
Speaker 1:Well, this goes back to the William Wallace. Men don't follow titles, they follow courage, right. So he is right in the sense that, like they're looking at Doug and saying courage.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's courage. There's another thing that is actually a tie, I think, between the visceral and the intellectual, and that is having a vision for the future.
Speaker 2:Having a vision for the future Because a positive one, a positive vision for the future, and you're actually doing something about it. This is back to the institutions they're actually building. This is why I think Kevin Young's article is actually damaging is because it, in a way, you have an armchair quarterback who is not actively telling people to build things, but instead are being school marms and slapping risks with rulers because of naughty talk.
Speaker 1:Does this feel a little bit like Gashmue? Yeah, like Nehemiah and Doug, and we're like an adjacent somehow adjacent community, as you said, an Ogden. But we're building and we are like you're in the trench blood, sweat and tears, counseling, preaching, teaching, casting vision, helping men get their lives in order, helping families get their lives in order, helping with financial, like all the bloody hard hand of the plow work. And then you have Gashmue, who's like Well, it's a little cramped.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it's a sambalot or gashmue in the most passive TGC way possible, because he's not directly saying you shouldn't go there because they're actually building hell or it's a cult or whatever it is.
Speaker 2:It's a small erosion of credibility, it's an undermining of the walls that they're building. It's just a. It's a very passive way to go about this is hey, this guy shouldn't be talking this way. You shouldn't actually listen to him. He's removing credibility from Doug is the is the approach because of some, I think, very bad arguments. Now I will say I think we'll get into that, but with the crass language I think there is probably some room for debate, but I don't think this was the appropriate format for it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, so let's talk about this. He's mainly I think this is actually one of the central arguments that Kevin is making yeah, Is that Doug is using coarse language, harsh language. I would say this to begin with I don't actually agree with all of Doug's usages of coarse language. I'm also not going to armchair quarterback him. Doug has defended, I think, his position on that.
Speaker 1:I do think that the Dolores, Umbridge school, marm wing of PCA world and many other reform camps that are like again the fire extinguishers in the flood, like they're trying to burn the culture down.
Speaker 1:And you're the guy out there who is complaining because you said it too hard. I tend to think if you read scripture and some of the things that God himself says, you know even the language of Jesus saying to Herod's people you go tell that fox the word for fox there is something equivalent to a female dog in our language. Jesus himself seems to use pretty harsh language. He's a lot of times to use even what we would call ad hominem responses, rhetorical responses to people. The Pharisees come to him and they say we want to engage you about a question theologically, and Jesus says you whitewash tombs, your father is the devil, you are serpents. That seems like language is kind of harsh and yet, even with all that, I wouldn't necessarily agree with every single thing that Doug has said and some of the if you can read the article we're not going to repeat, I think, a lot of the words I don't want to, but I don't agree with all of it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, Some of it is actually somewhat crass. Yeah, so I said there's no substance to the article. That's probably a little bit of a character. I will say that there are some things in there where I'm like I would not want to defend having used that word. I'm not comfortable using certain words that Doug has used. What's interesting is who's deciding what the line is, because even Doug responds to Justin what's his face is crossway guy. His tweet he repeats, and Kevin DeYoung does as well. He lists all of the words that Doug uses and puts asterisks in the vowel spot. And so Doug says something funny about apparently it's not. It's not sinful to use asterisks in these words, but it is if you don't.
Speaker 1:So but what I find so interesting is Kevin is clearly frustrated about the use of language. Right Doug is used. Potty talk, basically, is what this amounts to. Michael Foster at. This is Foster on social media. Michael has been one of the early people kind of burning down the TGC house for a long time. So, michael, I think this is today, wednesday, november 29th, when we're recording, but Michael posted this. He says hey, do you guys remember the time TGC's Brett McCracken recommended edifying films? So the article screenshot is seven edifying films to watch this fall. Michael says those films include the covenant and just so you're aware, the covenant has 46 uses of the F word, 14 uses of the S word, two uses of term for donkey, I guess, one use of, and then it gets into others that are actual blasphemy.
Speaker 2:I don't think the word was meant for donkey though.
Speaker 1:No, no, I'm not going to say all of them, but the point being, like, they have actual, like blasphemous language 46 uses of the F word. And then Michael says he says do you guys remember Pepperidge farm? Remembers? And he said I also wonder if Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung know about this one. Of course they know about this one. It's from September 14th 2023. It's very interesting to me, dan, because it feels like a double standard. And there's a lot more of these, by the way that you know. We could point to examples at TGC. I guess the question is do you think Kevin is being fair in going after the language? You mentioned a talk, I think it Desiring Gods with Paul.
Speaker 2:Tripp. Yeah, it was an interesting video that somebody had posted as a response to Justin Taylor and it was Paul Tripp, and he's using some language that Kevin DeYoung would take issue with, we'll just say that. And he's instructing his children on how to use language and how to use tone. But the thing is, you know, mark Driscoll actually did the same thing and they love to attack Mark Driscoll and I'm not going to defend Mark Driscoll on this podcast Real problems yeah there's real problems.
Speaker 2:But yeah, even Desiring God has used videos that have somewhat crass language. Here's the thing. There's something I wanted to talk about. So one of the things that I think certain personalities, certain people in different camps of Christianity will see is that automatically they're uncomfortable with a guy like Doug Wilson or maybe Eric Kahn, even what. There are people.
Speaker 1:I find that hard to believe.
Speaker 2:I know, I know that are uncomfortable with those sorts of personalities and I mean some of it is difficult for them to put their finger on, but ultimately when they read an article like this from Kevin DeYoung, they're like, oh, those guys are actually divisive. That's the problem. That's why I feel uncomfortable with them is because they're actually being divisive. What's ironic and hard to see is that Kevin DeYoung is doing the same thing A lot of times. When you read an Eric Kahn tweet or listen to a podcast or a Doug Wilson tweet or book or something like that, you are actually seeing not in 100% of cases, but often what you'll see is a bad word attributed to a bad thing, and it has to obviously match the elevation of the crassness or not crassness, but the severity of the word has to match the severity of the sin that's being pointed out.
Speaker 2:And God does this in Ezekiel, where he's talking about Israel and how they lost after these foreign gods, like after a horse's member, and it's very crude makes me uncomfortable. It really does. Wow, god really said that. Here's the thing. If Kevin DeYoung applies that same standard towards God, I don't think God passes the Kevin DeYoung test and so you actually have division happening within the camp. The problem is you get guys that are seen as the reasonable, nice guy, the winsome guy, the guy that's hey, let's be at peace. Like, settle down, buddy, let's not fight. In the beginning of the article he even talks about the medieval, like barbarian kings and Christianity and the.
Speaker 1:Christian heroes and Christian heroes yeah, things like that.
Speaker 2:So which we'll be talking about in Kings Hall, season 3. And attributing that to like maybe that's part of a motivation for this. The thing is, is there's actually division happening there as well, with Kevin DeYoung by punching those who are actually trying to do the work? And the thing is, you get a guy like Doug Wilson, who's written many, many books. He's written millions of words. He's said many, many words. The thing is, you could probably find somewhere in this podcast alone where I've said something that's like yeah, that probably wasn't accurate. You know, people just will fall short, they will misuse language and things like that. So I think one of the things that is at play here is you guys have a guy who's actually trying to cause division by discouraging people to the right who are doing something, who are building something, who are fighting something. There is division happening here, but it's not where you might think.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's interesting, dan, I agree with you. One of the things that you brought up and maybe you read it somewhere, I don't know, but a quote from GK Chesterton as we were preparing for this episode. Talking about this, chesterton said nine times out of 10, it is the course word that condemns an evil and the refined word that excuses it. I just want you know you shared that with me. I want to get your thoughts on it. It is so interesting because, again, going back to TGC, they've run articles from Sam Albury and others who've supported same-sex attraction, ie homosexual lust, saying that Sam Albury for a long time for those who aren't aware said he was a gay Anglican priest. I'm not sure he's quite that outspoken about it anymore, but he's. Functionally he's the same. You know it's the same position. They've supported things like same-sex attraction, which is heinous and unbiblical, led to things like re-voice. They were paramount in promoting those guys early on, when no one else would. So I look at that and I think, oh, but they have such nice words for Taylor Swift, isn't that nice? Yeah and oh, but the course words. And then, when it comes down to it, somebody like Doug, somebody like you know when Brian gets in trouble.
Speaker 1:When I get in trouble, it's usually for speaking hard. Plain words to real sin. You know, when you think about. I was explaining this to somebody the other day, they were like, yeah, that was seemed like a little much when you. You said that women who sleep around are like used hotel mattresses and I said, yeah, it seems a little much when the Lord says you go to the head of every street corner and spread your legs and all your righteous deeds are like filthy menstrual rags and you are like those who long for the members of a donkey and the emissions of a donkey. It seems a bit much, doesn't it? That's gross, it's disgusting. And that's actually the point, I think, what's so often missed, I think. Do you think Elijah, you know, you think Elijah today? Or John the Baptist today? Do you think people would say, oh, you're just being a shock jock, you're just a yes, you're just a master of hot takes.
Speaker 2:Do you think that's true? Yeah, I think that's true, and one of the criticisms that you'll often get for people that use hard truths to reveal either good or evil, they'll, you know, praising the good this is the right use of language is using the right word to describe truth. So when God says you are at the, at the, you know, in the streets spreading your legs and the thing is, most prostitutes charge, but you do it for free, yeah, and that's because God is using language rightly. He is using it rightly to describe something that is disgusting.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's horrible. It's an affront against God and created order and against image bearers. It is absolutely disgusting and horrible, and so that is an appropriate and righteous. That's the. That's the thing I think people miss. It's actually righteous that God described that act.
Speaker 2:And you know you get. You get people that are like well, that's God, you're not God, so you can't use that language. I, I, I mean I'm not God, so I don't differ with that. But we're supposed to emulate Christ, like you said, and God displays his righteousness through his law. We're supposed to emulate that, his righteousness. One of the things that you'll be accused of and that was brought up in the article. And the thing is I I don't know a lot of the situations that he was referencing with Doug. I haven't done my homework, but he, he, uh, kevin DeYoung accuses Doug of constantly using the Martin Bailey fallacy.
Speaker 1:Martin Bailey fallacy. Today's episode is sponsored by Premier Body Armor, your top choice for safeguarding your family. What sets them apart? Well, Premier isn't here to convince you to wear a plate carrier round town. Nope, they're focused on innovating armor right into your normal everyday life. Think bulletproof laptop case or lightweight armor insert that fits into your favorite bag and stops most handgun, shotgun and even rifle ammunition. Unlike much of the tactical industry, choosing Premier Body Armor not only ensures that you're getting amazing armor, but you'll be doing business with a family owned Christian company. Visit PremierBodyArmorcom today and use promo code KINGSHALL for 10% off your order today.
Speaker 1:Got questions? Reach out to customer service or send their precedent and email directly at alex at PremierBodyArmorcom and you can speak to him yourself. Don't wait to invest your family's security, but reach out today to Premier Body Armor. Don't carry a bag, no worries. How about a moisture wicking athletic t-shirt with minimalist and lightweight soft armor panels built in? Check the link in the show notes or visit PremierBodyArmorcom today.
Speaker 1:Our sponsor, Private Family Banking Partners, is on a mission to help Christians live out the Dominion mandate by making a stealth-like move away from the mainstream banks and into their own privatized banking system. This innovative system is designed to guarantee uninterrupted compound interest and tax-free growth without exposure to typical stock market risks. To join this growing community that is already building wealth into future generations and converting Postmill Talk into Postmill Action, contact Private Family Banking partner Chuck De Lauderante at his email chuck at privatefamilybankingcom Again, that's Chuck at privatefamilybankingcom To set up an appointment and to receive a free copy of Chuck's new book Protect your Money Now how to Build Multigenerational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown. Go to the link in the show notes for more information.
Speaker 2:So it's an old castle structure you actually had, and I could have this backwards. I don't have my computer pulled up right now but I believe the Bailey was a mildly defended, if not undefended, part of the town that was more comfortable to live in. Then you had the Mott, which was the highly defended, essentially like a walled tower sort of position, to where it's very defensible. You cannot penetrate this thing. I think I have that right. The Bailey was the comfortable part of town that was not defended and the Mott was the highly defended position, the keep if you will. And so this fallacy essentially is I've heard it described like Black Lives Matter. So the movement. You have the Bailey, which is the very difficult to defend position, where they're talking about where for transgender lives, the anti-nuclear family, encouraging Black women to not be under the authority of Black men and dismantling the patriarchy, things like that very difficult to defend positions. And when they're attacked they retreat into the Mott, which is Black Lives Matter. That's what we're saying is Black Lives Matter. They don't even attempt to defend their position, they're just saying but all we're saying is Black Lives Matter. That's what we mean. That's the Mott and Bailey.
Speaker 2:And so you'll see, eric and I were discussing this beforehand. You'll see this often with click bait. So because we're both hunters and we like shooting, you'll see something like the 30,. No one should ever shoot the 30-odd six the worst round ever. And then you watch a video or read the article and they're like the 30-odd six is a very versatile round. It's been around since 1906 and has been used by the military and blah blah blah and has a lot of great applications for today. But with modern loads there's no reason that you really need to shoot. So you're not saying nobody should shoot the 30-odd six or that it's irrelevant anymore.
Speaker 1:And I was a digital editor. Yeah, we actually ran a story called why we Hate the 308. And the article was like I didn't write it. But the article was basically like we hate it because it's so good. And here are the seven reasons why it's so good. I remember being like, okay, well, yeah, so the whole point. Correct me if I'm wrong. Like the Mott and Bailey is, it grabs your attention. That's what click bait does, but in a way it lets you down because you're retreating.
Speaker 2:Yeah, because you can't actually defend that position. You can't defend it, and so, like I said, I have not examined every single one of Doug Wilson's arguments to see if it's a Mott and Bailey fallacy. My instincts would say it's probably not. Some of them could be. It's a very effective rhetorical tool. It's actually an informal fallacy, by the way, and so some people have accused Eric Kahn this guy I saw on the Twitter.
Speaker 2:He had posted something about adoption and, essentially, if you look at the argument, if you break down the argument into bullet points, you have where he said that you do not have a moral obligation to adopt, there's no law to adopt. That's what you're saying. Yeah, there's no moral law that you must adopt, and that it comes down to a wisdom issue. In fact, you said, in fact, it could be unwise and detrimental. Those are the arguments that you're making, and so people would say, oh, that's the Bailey, that's the Bailey, right, that's an extreme position. And then, when you go and do a podcast, you retreat into the Mott where it's like oh, this is no, I didn't mean that. I didn't mean no, that's actually not true. This was not a Mott and Bailey fallacy, because our explanation or expansion of the tweet revealed why the arguments were true, whereas in a Black Lives Matter, when they say you're trying to dismantle the nuclear family and they're saying, no well, hold on, we're just saying Black Lives Matter.
Speaker 2:They did actually retreated from their position. They did, they did retreat from the position.
Speaker 1:And we're saying no, we're providing explanation. I am for why I would still, to this day, defend everything I said in the original tweet. I think the other thing that's interesting like in the adoption one I got accused of a Mott and Bailey it was usually because somebody was. They would say, well, you're saying this, and it was like a complete misreading yeah, you're saying adopted children aren't really your own. And I was like I am not saying that. And when I would defend that, they were like aha, mott and Bailey, yeah, and you're like well, no, because that wasn't part of my original argument at all. So that is really helpful.
Speaker 2:Well, I think the whole article is trying to paint Moscow as that. If the only reason that people are attracted to Moscow is because of a cultural aesthetic and a political what did he say? A political.
Speaker 1:Well, it's a political position of opposition, yeah, and that's fundamentally oppositional framework, yeah.
Speaker 2:And that's the reason that.
Speaker 1:But he calls it and this is kind of the thing that's tied to it. It's all about what he calls the Moscow mood, right, which is actually hard to defend or attack because it seems pretty ethereal. It is ethereal. I'm really concerned. This is to me, this is like. This is why I would call Kevin DeYoung's piece sort of a concerned bro piece. I'm like you know, I'm just really concerned with the mood here going on and maybe it just feels off guys, and I'm like this is what. This is a very light version of what Rod Drear and David French have been doing for years.
Speaker 2:I was just curious if you could speak to a minute on Christian unity. I know we talked about it just a minute ago, but some people are really concerned that harsh words are causing disunity and that it hurts Christians. I know even in the article Kevin DeYoung brings up that at one point in one of the no quarter November videos that Doug records he takes a swig of bourbon and a puff of his cigar and says something about for the T totalers, or something like that. I was just curious if you, if you, had any thoughts on that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, I do, and I think one of the one of the things Kevin also says and I'm quoting, but this is particularly about no quarter November. Yeah, he says no quarter November strikes a tone that is deliberately sarcastic and just a little bit naughty. It takes I can't believe. I just had to read that on the Hardman podcast. It takes cheap shots at other Christians. It's about culture, warring and building. Okay, end quote. I would go back to something that I said. This was like the beginning of any public platform for myself. This is like pre Twitter, so pre 2020, I had a Twitter handle and the only thing I ever tweeted was about Broncos games and I was complaining because Peyton Manning wasn't winning enough. And now I feel ashamed, so I would like to actually recant.
Speaker 2:Did you delete those tweets?
Speaker 1:I did Because I look back and we've had eight years of losing until recently and I was like you know what? I was foolish, we had it so good. Anyway. So go back to that era. I wrote an article that I published on Eric Khancom and this was kind of what got everything started. I said in the article the evangelical world, the time at seminary that I went to it seems like we are raising pastors who are effeminate and soft and they are like antithetical to blue collar working men. This is, like you know, hard men in a world of softness is where the idea came from, from a single post and Toby Sumter shared it originally and it had something like 400,000 page views in a week. It was crazy. Wow.
Speaker 1:I go back to that with with actually, kevin, these guys have no sense of humor. Doug, in no quarter of November. First of all, no quarter of November is funny. Doug is trying to be jovial and light in many ways and if you can't take a joke as a man, well, number one that's effeminate and soft. Like we talk about this all the time in manly contexts. Some of the things that get said that are just like ribbing good, manly ribbing to each other Like I'm not sure that shirt fits you anymore, or you know, the real hero here is that button. I mean, we love each other, we work together, we love each other.
Speaker 2:But one of the one of the functions of men, the inner group together, when they make fun of each other, is to toughen the soft underbelly.
Speaker 1:Yes, and they're continually doing this sort of thing.
Speaker 1:And so I think when you're like, oh, there's like, basically, kevin is saying there's no place for sarcasm and gosh I'm going to read it again a little bit of naughtiness, I mean, this is this is the quintessence of what I'm saying from the beginning, and why the Hardman podcast exists is because evangelicals are soft, largely neutered, effeminate guys.
Speaker 1:And it's this white collar world where it's like you know, later in the article, he's like you know, he's the word was I'm like okay, well, here's the deal. Chris Wiley pointed this out, by the way, great follow. But Chris pointed this out. He said if you look at this whole debate going on with Kevin and Doug, he said it strikes me as it's inherently anti-blue collar because you go to any construction site, you go to any blue collar field, you go work with our people and we spend a lot of time with them, and I've been blue collar for many seasons in my life. Now look at that and I think do you think the average blue collar worker in America, including Christians, would be hyper offended if you called somebody a wuss?
Speaker 2:I think you'd be mocked, because that's actually not extreme enough for most blue collar people.
Speaker 1:Yes, well, and if you took offense to the word wuss you would be mocked for that. So the other thing I would say about language here it's really interesting Like Kevin is concerned that Doug took cheap shots at G3 and at the ERLC. Those are the two he mentions by name in the article. Well, let's ask ourselves a question who's actually being divisive? Is Doug being divisive by calling G3 out? Or is G3 being divisive by consistently, ongoingly, unrepentantly lying about people, including myself? I mean what is actually divisive biblically speaking? And this is what goes back to Chesterton. Like you're upset because I called somebody out for lying and bearing false witness and you're not upset at the people bearing false witness. Again, to quote Chesterton, it's the course word that will be condemned, even though it's addressing evil. Yes, and just saying harshly like I guess this is harsh in our culture You're lying and bearing false witness. You shouldn't do that. I will say one thing, though less people think that we're, you know, just apologists for Doug.
Speaker 1:I find Doug in the May blog and blog at times very helpful. But when the heat of conflict is upon us, doug can be overly verbose and difficult to understand and that is incredibly unhelpful. In like heated situations I often get lost in his arguments. I think that he will use, you know, biting words at the wrong time, and there can be a problem with being overly playful when you actually should like be really clear and serious. Yeah, like, hey, no, let's get this out of the way. Like, I think this about this camp because people need to know, and so I'm not defending every blog in May blog. I find many of them unhelpful. I'll just be frustrating and frustrating I'll be.
Speaker 1:I'll be perfectly honest, and I've I've both enjoyed Doug and his work and appreciated so much of the content, while continuing to think that the other thing, though. I think that's not fair about this no quarter of November is one month out of the year. 99% of Doug's ministry, like what we would say for ours 99% of our ministry is doing reform theology and talking about households and family and boring West Minsterian Christianity. It's not mostly polemical, but then they're acting like that's all, doug, doug does.
Speaker 2:Yeah Well, and it's easy to armchair quarterback and then say why he says in the article Kevin DeYoung does. He says why don't they take one month of the year and use teach reformed theology?
Speaker 1:They do that all the time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, and the thing is I think they fail to understand that this isn't a ministry of a church. Can and press is not a ministry of a church. No quarter of November is part of a business. It is marketing, I mean, and people want to sell books Like that's the but they. It doesn't negate the arguments that they're making or the things that they're teaching. One of the frustrations that I do frequently have with Doug and is a little rich on the sarcasm, kevin DeYoung actually uses a turn of phrase. He's like he loves PG Woodhouse and PG Woodhouse has a way with words where it's like he flips you around on a trapeze and can stick the landing. And I think quite often what you find with Doug is that he attempts to do the same thing but cannot stick the landing.
Speaker 1:And you know what this is. This is fair, one of the things Kevin says. He says Wilson has frequently compared the PCA study committee, for example, to a stacked blonde in a tight dress as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants. So these are ones where it's like, okay, we're all going to have a little bit different meters about what's acceptable. I would not say that.
Speaker 2:I wouldn't say it, and part of the reason I wouldn't say it is because I'm not entirely sure what he's saying.
Speaker 1:I'm not entirely sure, I don't actually know like they all got implants, I don't know what exactly. Now, all that to say. I'm not going to come out and criticize Doug for something like that when it's like well, what's okay, let's. Let's put it in perspective. Yeah, the words could have been different. What about PCA, study committees? What about PCA and Revoice? Like what? What is a? That's what you have to ask yourself in wisdom. What's a bigger issue? It? Does Doug have a point here? I think he does have a point. He does have a point and we should not miss that. One of the other things is sort of like if you read this article, kevin will conclude with a more excellent way what is the solution to?
Speaker 1:all of this Before we get to that, we'll close with that, okay, roughly and Eric Khan kind of way. But one of the questions I want to ask you. This is my theory I think TGC is dying. I think they're hemorrhaging. I think the mainline evangelical churches are hemorrhaging. Tim Keller wrote a manifesto about how they were hemorrhaging. He has passed away. John Piper is old and out of the picture. The young wrestlers and reforms is, I think, the leadership, including Kevin. Let's give Kevin his due. He was a part of that leadership. You drove the bus off a cliff man. They really did those things, and I think they're watching a movement grow.
Speaker 1:It's hard not to imagine there would be a little bit of envy. It's hard not to imagine that, like, okay, you're warning us against going to. You know, being a part of a Moscow. That I'm sure if they if they've Kevin, listened to you know Brian's recent sermon series, I'm sure Kevin would be aghast. I'm sure there would be pearls that were being rent off someone's neck because there was so much clutching and ripping the pearls. I think they would be upset with us too. To me this feels like I'm watching something else grow that I don't approve of. I'm watching my thing die, and so I need to come out here and just warn people Like, okay, well, a better thing might be. What are you building? I know what you built. I know what failed. I know what blew up in everybody's faces. I know what's been lying to Christians for many years now. It's the thing you built. Okay, so that's my read on the situation Too harsh, crazy.
Speaker 2:No, no, no, no. This is what makes. This is why I keep bringing it up. The people that are concerned about Christian unity make my skin crawl.
Speaker 1:You've been dividing Christianity for decades.
Speaker 2:Because here's the thing If Kevin D Young really wanted to actually help, if he wanted to be helpful, he would not do the concerned bro article, the erosion, the sandblot, you know, the gas, gas move play. What he would do is he would come alongside and he would say, hey, I see this movement growing. I think it's great because of the reasons that he said. He gave some reasons why he thinks that it's good and let's go at this together. Let's figure out a way that we can grow this in a healthy direction.
Speaker 2:But I think this is so foreign to this sort of crowd, to this TGC, this big Eva crowd, because the idea of a positive vision is so foreign. I think it makes them uncomfortable. Instead, they know how to critique. They know how to critique and punch right. They also know how to do theology. They know how to do things in the ether, they know how to do all of the academia, but when it comes to actually building something completely foreign, they didn't completely for yeah, like I said, they built something and it's like falling apart and and it's been almost wholly culturally ineffective.
Speaker 2:Well, it's bad. No, I think it has been effective in the movement left.
Speaker 1:Well, that's true, and but I also. What I mean is like, if you're trying to Christianize the world, that's failed. But they have definitely worldized Christians. They've made Christians more worldly. Oh, ok, you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 1:So it's like now Christians have content where they're like. No, I think Kevin DeYoung is a respectable voice and I think there really are seven things Christians can learn from the era's tour. But I will say this he didn't publicly criticize the Gospel Coalition or anybody associated with it. He's criticizing Doug. It's interesting where he ends. He said Wilson knows how to strike the tone of being wise, gracious, resolute and winsome, and he basically says he needs to do more of this. Christians could be drawn to Wilson because he shows them more of Christ rather than of Christendom.
Speaker 2:That's interesting that one made me throw up in my mouth. I went and got a drink of water to clear the vomit from my mouth after reading that statement.
Speaker 1:Kevin has. Clearly that was hyperbole by the way. Kevin. Oh no, I take it fully as reality, because that's how.
Speaker 2:I feel right now.
Speaker 1:Kevin, I'm measuring my words. As Doug said to John Piper, when Piper was like I'm really concerned and Doug was like, well, just know that we're holding back, and John said that's why I'm concerned.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:We are holding back, but but he has clearly read his fair share of decolonize your bookshelf. The idea, as Will and Pack in season three of the King's Hall that Christ and Christendom are opposite terms, that makes me furious.
Speaker 2:I don't, I don't know what to say, because it's not ignorance, it's. It has to be deceit.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's more at play here. So that okay. But then he says but if Doug wants to show more of Christ than Christendom, he would have to dial it back, way back. And that is the sarcasm.
Speaker 2:I just find it funny. By the way, the guy who has the clearly reformed website I don't know if he's read John Knox or maybe much of Martin Luther, for example- Well, this is interesting.
Speaker 1:So we were talking about this article in Family Worship, just kind of, you know, breezing through some of the points. I said to the boys I said what do you think they're reading? Calvin and Luther? And he goes well, the man's clearly never read Luther. And well, I think he obviously has.
Speaker 2:But I think the issue is.
Speaker 1:Here's the real issue. Many people said this in response to Kevin DeYoung, because Kevin was like my Presbytery would put, put Doug under charges, you know, for the things he said and I said well, to be fair, kevin, I think you would put Martin Luther under charges. I think you would take issue with John Calvin. I think you would take issue with most of the Puritans, like this whole game that keeps being played of we're clearly, and I think what they're trying to say, we're the truly reformed folks and we're nice and the church ladies like us and we don't ruffle feathers and we write about Taylor Swift. I just, to me, this is just, it's actually disgusting and these, you know, doug, you need to dial it back. I actually think there are times where Doug needs to dial it back to, but for completely different reasons. Yeah, for the sake of clarity. Clarity and usually cause I'm like Doug, I don't know what you're saying. I actually don't know what these words mean, right, but it's not because I think, in being sarcastic, he's showing more of Christ than Christendom. I also think, as a consumer somewhat, of the Canon Plus app and a consumer of a lot of their content 90 plus percent of that content is not sarcastic or sharp Like today. I was reading posts on future men from Doug. He's talking, he's like just be a good father, but I think it's just because that the only thing they hear is the stuff that's getting the most attention. This is funny. So Kevin ends.
Speaker 1:He says he could use the eighth decade of his life to devote his considerable writing talents to persuading unbelievers to consider Christianity First of all. Doug has done a lot of that, to passing on the reform faith and offering deep, penetrating cultural analysis. I could. I believe he could do all of this if he wanted to. Or he can continue to pepper his writing with naughty words, play with blow torches and make fun of Southern Baptists that's the other option. So this is a. This is a false dilemma. Fallacy that's the other option. It will be hard to take both approaches at the same time. Especially if you have the Constitution of a Kevin DeYoung, especially if you've been reared by Tim Keller and being winsome is the key thing. It would be really hard to hear hard words. I would just encourage people if you're like oh man, eric, I don't know.
Speaker 1:Read and Douglas, the feminization of the American culture. She talks about how the church was the number one central thing that allowed for feminization of American culture. She's like a feminist, this lady, and she's talking about how the church, over time they started getting more lady people in leadership, more ladies in teaching roles and eventually more ladies in the pastor pastorate. And she says what happened is the theology went out the window because apparently women, paul said, are not supposed to be teaching and holding authority in the church. Apparently there was something to that doctrine goes out the window. And they said basically what happened is all the men who got recruited for the pulpit were sissy boys, they were sickly, they stayed at home with mom and they had the sensibilities of women.
Speaker 1:Our pastorate today in America is largely full of men who have the sensibilities of women. This is what I mean when I say they're effeminate, they're soft, they're unmanly. This is like the concern bro article. It's like I'm just really concerned about the mood and I'm just really concerned about Doug's a little mean. So why are you not concerned that TGC is running the crap they're running.
Speaker 2:It is really concerning to me. I'll be concerned, bro, for a moment. It doesn't make sense to me that Kevin would criticize Doug for a lack of evangelism, right, when it doesn't seem like these sorts of people take seriously what's at stake. People are dying, they're going to hell and churches are helping lead them there. That's what's at stake is eternal damnation, and it seems like they're really concerned about using a couple of naughty words, about using some cultural verbosity in order to fight this war. You realize people are being damned to hell and churches are helping. They're helping and you're afraid of dividing that. I say to hell with it. That's what I say.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, it's shocking to me I didn't see Kevin respond to this article that TGC ran and pulled on October 12th of 2023. People are going to hell. They're concerned, supposedly, with evangelism, and the article was titled Seven Things Christians Can Learn from Taylor Swift's Eris Tour Articles still up on the Gospel Coalition website Not that one, but a different one, which is Taylor Swift as well. January 5th 2016, by Trevon Wax, one of their kind of top guys the Gospel according to Taylor Swift. I just want to know where you are, kevin, on that. So, dan, I do want to wrap this up so that it doesn't go on forever Without ad hominem.
Speaker 1:There is something to credibility, right. Who would I take this warning well from. We have to say, there are times where we do have to hear warnings and criticisms. I think some of the stuff in Kevin's article you should read and be like okay, probably learn from that. Okay, great.
Speaker 1:But why does credibility matter? Part of what I think we're talking about is like I don't really find somebody like Kevin DeYoung to be all that credible. I know people will disagree with that because they're like but he published with Crossway, but he's a complementarian right, all those things. Part of what does it for me is which fights people will pick and which fights they will not pick. Fair criticism that is something to be aware of, I think, for all of us with credibility, right Is saying, okay, have I fought the right fights? And should people listen to me? For the most part, I think Doug is actually, you know, 2020, he's been in the middle of it. He stood his ground. I think that's why a lot of people actually are more trusting toward him. Do you buy the credibility argument? You look at somebody like Kevin and you're like is that ad hominem, or is it right to say have you fought the right fights?
Speaker 2:No, no, that's a measure of wisdom. You have to be able to look at somebody and ask if they're courageous. Are they actually for me? That's important to know. If you have somebody that you're in a relationship with and you're like I don't think they're for me. I know they actively gossip about me and they give you advice. They don't have credibility. Don't listen to them. It's tied to this. To be clear, it's a crusade against the Turks, against the Turks.
Speaker 1:Oh boy, that's for season three of the Kingshole podcast. Yeah, it's just what we're starting. We're just wetting your appetite, yeah. But one of the things that I've often reflected on is we want there's a line, we want to believe the best about people.
Speaker 1:But one of the characters that I've often referenced is Jane from Pride and Prejudice. She's too trusting, she is too optimistic about other people's intentions and it causes her pain and grief and she almost destroys her life by marrying the wrong person, for example. And one of her tracks of repentance and pride and prejudice is that she has to be more grounded in reality. She has to have a more honest assessment of people. So one of the things Paul says is we should assess things rightly, not too high, not too low.
Speaker 1:Do you think there could be a problem, just in general, with when an enemy approaches us and, yeah, you have to make an assessment enemy, ally, friend, all those things? I get it. But if people consistently show that they are against you, like they've literally never done a positive thing for you, and they consistently like throw rocks at your house and try to, even if it's subtle, undermine the work you're doing, do you think it's wise, or is it like Jane, to just be like, you know, fair, honest, reasonable guy, because there's a line here, isn't there. Yeah, sometimes we want to be ironic and be like okay, that's, let's be ironic and let's tackle this. How do you distinguish that between like? Sometimes we also have to identify name actual enemies.
Speaker 2:I think it really does depend on the situation, because there is something, like you said, to credibility, to where there is a time to mock, like if somebody attacks you, there's a time to mock it and then there is a time to be ironic. I think that's reasonable. Yes, when your enemy comes against you and Charges you with something, I mean, is it, is it something that you can gain credibility from by being ironic or is it something that you should actually be courageous and just go scorched earth?
Speaker 1:Depends on the situation, I think yeah, which is hard, I was thinking even in the Old Testament. But the enemy approaches the wall. This like Hezekiah, and they're like insulting the people in the Hebrew language, yeah, and they're like don't answer them, just wait, like yeah or respond.
Speaker 2:It also depends on the content of their argument.
Speaker 1:I think just a careful enough warning for people that it's like, yeah, read it and see a fair critique and some of the things. But you should read this pretty cautiously and I'm not saying Kevin's an enemy, I am not saying that.
Speaker 2:But I am saying no.
Speaker 1:Well, you think about, like culture, war and field generals and all those things. I watch it, kevin D young and I say I don't know, mm-hmm, he's definitely done a lot of things that don't seem very courageous. Yeah, and so at best.
Speaker 2:Would you want that guy in the shield wall next to you? Nope, as the Viking Horde's attack? No, I would not. One of the things that I think is important to just get behind it, in it, behind the veil of our minds, to just see how we're actually thinking through this. When we read an article, what are we thinking? Because I think that's important. Maybe people don't understand this.
Speaker 2:When I read an article like this, what I'm looking for is principles. I'm looking for print principles, I'm looking for arguments, and those are all filtered then through the data of is this person credible? Like you said, should I believe this person? Is this a genuine Source? Is this a person that is for me? Is this a person that is actually, like you said, courageous? Why should I believe them?
Speaker 2:And so, when we approach this, it's important that you have to disconnect your emotions From the arguments. You have to be able to look at them and say Is this a substantive argument? Is this an argument that I need to take seriously? What is the data? And emotions are still important, don't get me wrong, but if you mainly read it as the way it was intended, which is an emotive argument, there's the danger of being swept up into the emotional nature of the argument and not being able to reason with actually what's happening.
Speaker 2:This is the reason that we're talking about this. It's, as we have stated before, it's not because we just love Doug Wilson so much that anytime he's attacked we will be the first ones there to defend him. That's not it at all. It's because this sort of argument is actually harmful to what Christians are trying to do in in the work of building, of building generations, of building over the next 500 years, and Trying to be diligent in our duties as fathers, as churchmen, as pastors. And so it's important to not be swept up into the emotive nature of these sorts of articles, but to actually look at the data and the arguments and weigh them with wisdom. So that's what we're trying to do. That's why we're talking about this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's really helpful. Do you think there's a time and place? And you know you share this gift a lot. I shared a lot because it's just amazing. But the Jeremy Clarkson is there a time and place? Many people read it, and my first. Until people ask me about it, this is what I was doing. Oh, no, anyway. Yeah, exactly, I mean, is there a time and place for that?
Speaker 2:Absolutely, yeah, absolutely there is. There's a lot of noise out there. I mean, this happens a lot for people. That post on Twitter Is that you're gonna get, and when you get, engagement, most of it is not helpful, thought out, reasoned. I mean it's just you're gonna have to do that, like yeah, whatever, anyway, moving on. So I think there is a time and place for that.
Speaker 1:So Dan close us down with, I Think, a charge to our men.
Speaker 2:Well, no, I do think about Alfred in the shield wall. This is where I've been doing a lot of study. King Alfred, king Alfred in the shield wall. So at the battle of Ashton, his brother, who had half of the military forces, didn't show. And so Alfred is left with the entire host of the Viking army, who has the superior footing on the Whitehorse Hill, which you should look up really interesting. And Alfred has half the battle, half the army, and he's about to do battle. He has a decision to make. He has a decision to run.
Speaker 2:His pyattistic brother was praying, yeah yeah. He lingered long in the mass, she and his prayers anyway. And so Alfred is standing facing the entire Viking horde With only half of his men, and he has a decision to make. He has a decision, I'm sure, going through his head. One can imagine that he's weighing his options of fleeing or of Standing and fighting, with only half the men, vastly outnumbered, downhill from the enemy. The enemy has a high ground and so he has to weigh if I flee, I will be utterly destroyed, everybody will will be completely destroyed in the route. Or do we stand and fight, even though the odds look overwhelming?
Speaker 2:And it says that Alfred Assembled his men, he called for the shield wall, called his men to remember their oaths, and he fought like a wild boar, to the point where the Viking horde began to retreat when his, his brother, had shown. And so what I would encourage you men to do is that there are going to be voices, whether they're Inside your head or whether they're external voices to where they say do not stand and fight, do not be mean spirited, do not wage the war that's in front of you, do not build a fox would jump up on your wall and knock it down. Do not listen to them. Instead, embrace the boldness that Christ has given you, with a new life, new heart and a new mind, and go and fight. I Mean to battle, let's go dude, let's go.
Speaker 1:Dan see, this is why this. We don't even have to ask. This is why Dan does the charge. Dan, I want to thank you so much for joining me in this episode of the hard men podcast. Once again, thank you for listening to this show. We do encourage our listeners to check us out on patreon Early access to content. You also get exclusive access to the pugilist, of which this was but a mere smattering, dan. So many more pugilist shows on there for your listening pleasure. Joined today for as little as $5 a month and you can check the link in the show notes to sign up for Patreon. Dan, it's been a real pleasure and until next time, stay frosty, fight a good fight, act like men.