The Moscow Mood for DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed | Reformation And Revival
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 дек 2023
- Every now and then the Lord tees one up for you. And this He has done in Kevin DeYoung’s critique of the Moscow mood. You have certainly heard of this piece by now, in which DeYoung exemplifies his careful analysis and honest assessment, which really boils down to, “Yes, the Moscow thing has done some good, but I’m very concerned about the long term spiritual effects of the Moscow mood, a mood which pretty much doesn’t comport with Christian virtue.” I say that the Lord has teed this one up, because DeYoung’s critique is both quite plausible to a good portion of the Reformed and Evangelical world, and it is at the same time a critique that has significantly missed the mark and exposed problems in that slice of the Reformed and Evangelical world that appreciates his critique. When something like that happens, we really do need to discuss it. But first let me point you to some key responses.
Reformation and Revival is presented by Canon Press.
The Moscow Mood has forever changed my life in helping me love the Lord and my family. Showed me that soul and body are all of Christ's. That we are to be a joyful bunch of saints.
Keep making more of that Moscow Mood, brothers!
The material out of Moscow saved my marriage and brought me back on track with our Lord. Now, it is helping me joyful raise my two children under two.
So well said!
You speak for lots of us!🤍
I’m learning how to be a biblical man at the age of 59 and have the people of Moscow to thank.
I never realized how feminized and worldly the SBC culture actually is. Snappy skinny jeans and leopard print glasses frames are NOT manly. They’re effeminate. Let the Gospel Coalition and the SBC have all of that if they must. Let them embrace effeminacy. It’s only a matter of time before their men submit to their women and ordain females as pastors. Well, some already have. There’s your long term spiritual fruit, Mr. DeYoung. It’s not even really long term. It’s now.
Mine too , when my local pastors either wouldn’t help or gave me horrible advice .
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I can’t emphasize how much I appreciate the media that comes out of Moscow…the Canon + app has impacted my life greatly!🙏🏻
Those looking for cultural peace ultimately end up as cultural appeasers. Christ is King!
Well said Jared. KDY critiques only the "Web Wilson" and not the "Warm Pastoral Wilson." Hopefully, KDY takes another look at both and sees a brother to lock arms with.
There shouldn't be 2 Wilson persona's
@@jtlearn1 perhaps...however one is a perceived web persona because many of us don't know what he is like as a pastor and a friend.
Fruit abounds, increases, yea, even overflows Moscow into surrounding communities in Latah County and even into the adjoining Nez Perce County...and glory to God!!
As a pastor, it truly perplexes me when I witness a fellow brother deliberately engaging in the act of smearing or slandering another brother. We find ourselves in the midst of a spiritual battle, fighting against the influences of a culture that often turns away from Christ. While some may choose to wield handguns as a metaphorical weapon to counteract a Christ-less society, the question arises: why expend energy criticizing a fellow brother who, at the opportune moment, is utilizing cannons to confront this cultural challenge?
In moments of disagreement within our Christian community, my heart inclines towards gratitude for the rich content emanating from Moscow. Why? Because these individuals are my brothers in Christ, passionately committed to witnessing the expansion of His kingdom. It is crucial for us, as believers, to focus our efforts on building up rather than tearing down, supporting one another in the common goal of advancing the Kingdom of Christ.
Love the Moscow Mood!!!
I love both DeYoung and Longshore. Praying that this in house discussion will sharpen both of them and not be an issue of division.
This was excellent, where has Kevin ever been critical of anything TGC has done?
He probably contributed to the since - deleted puff piece on Taylor Swift
He has spoken at TGC and is on tgeor board of directors.
Amazing and helpful analysis brother!
Thank you again
Thank you!
Excellent , ❤ Ty
I love the ‘Moscow Mood’ all the way over the waters - England, UK. Keep going my friends!!
Perhaps R.C Sproul's example is a little bit more: durable, winsome amd intellectual penetrating because of tge genuine humility it has generated wisdom from God's word and has Bourne fruit fir over 50 years in Ligoneer ministries. Now in its 52nd year.
'Winsome'. Oh dear 😂@@johntobey1558
How many who critique Moscow ID actually visit? The old practice of say it to my face is the best practice before critique.
Would that Doug Wilson would follow your recommendation.
That 'Moscow Mood' has helped me shake off weakness and apathy, love the Lord God more strenuously, and lead my family better. God has used it mightily in this poor man's life. My family is better off in many ways due to the encouragement and edification I have found there, and many who have been discipled by Moscow.
What KDY fails to grasp is that Ploductivity isn’t merely a theory for Doug, it’s a way of life…it’s how can write many, many useful books, he can write cultural commentary, often in the spirit of Wodehouse, he can (harmlessly) make fun of Southern Baptists, he can play with flamethrowers while smoking regular cigars AND he does this ALL on top his PRIMARY gig, which is pastoring the saints at Christchurch Moscow!
Sooooo Good. As a Baptist, I listen to Doug, have a Canon+ membership and without hesitation rebuke the sissy spined from TGC.
Years from now, possibly thousands of years from now, when looking back at ‘the early church’, people will point to Moscow, Idaho and recognize the ‘tip of the spear’…Christ or chaos brother’s and sister’s!
Uh, no. Get rid of the abortion clinics in Moscow and then you might have a case.
Good point about the fullness of good works that strengthens each other.
Thank God, for the "mood" in Moscow.
Luther used pretty colorful words when addressing the Pope and other opponents. Not that it’s preferable, just stating historical facts.
What I appreciate about the Moscow Mood is it's virile, potent quality and salty flavor. When confronting a decadent culture that is out to "bury" God's church under it's perversity, soft, and winsome "parlor" discussions don't make much of an impression on this Christ hating culture. Just sayin.
I see Moscow as the "Trump" of evangelicalism and KDY as the establishment. Moscow is saying out loud what we all are thinking, even if it isnt always PC.
More high octane jared!
“Mood?”
Perhaps they will wake up and find they have been raptured …
Dr. DeYoung took a wrong turn from the outset when he said he was not going to address any distinctive theological concerns at Moscow. But when it comes to the critics it looks like that's just the way it is for now, and maybe that will never change.
To me, the theological concerns are primary. The reason DW and Dr. Longshore and the others at Moscow constantly mop the floor with their critics is exactly BECAUSE theology is front-and-center. Moscow is certain about things where academic evangelicalism sees a spectrum; Moscow makes eschatology primary where most of academic evangelicalism makes it secondary. This makes it spectacularly simple to dunk on the "other guy" over and over. Dr. Thomas Schreiner has transitioned in his eschatological view pretty frequently....from dispensationalist, to historic premil, and now on amil and I've even seen chatter that he might have bounced back and forth between historic premil and amil a bit. (No criticism toward him meant by pointing that out).
One thing worth noticing is the growing trend toward "eclectic" eschatologies. Some of the best contemporary commentaries on Revelation represent ONE view, that of the author of that particular commentary. Now all of these exist in a broader "traditional" eschatological framework, but it has become more accpetable recently to kind of step out there and present "how you see it."
And I would include the eschatology we get from Moscow and DW specifically in this same boat. Does DW's postmillennialism match up with Boettner's at every point worth consideration? NO. What about Edwards and the Puritan postmils? Does Moscow's eschatology vary from the postmillennialism of that time? What about between even Wilson and Gentry? Do we still acknowledge Chilton at all?
So where eschatology is a subject that MOST of evangelicalism discusses with Grace and yes, even the dreaded word "tolerance", Moscow discusses it as though there is nothing left to talk about at all. It's a done deal. Moscow's iteration of postmillennial theonomy IS THE TRUTH, and there is nothing left to say. And from where I sit, I guess everyone agrees with this, EVEN THE ONES WHO CRITICIZE MOSCOW.
Now I could say Moscow is "wrong" for not policing things up a bit better. But I'm not convinced this is Moscow's job. You could say "well I shouldn't have to read 30 years worth of Doug Wilson books to see what makes Moscow very particular in the Reformed tradition" but in reality, what else do we want? He hasn't hidden anything. Maybe if everyone wasn't so daggone willing to IGNORE and essentially SHUN the guy, we wouldn't be in this predicament.
Nevertheless, Moscow speaks with CERTAINTY about many things I suspect the scriptures have left either for a particular time, or not fully revealed, or in some degree of tension that we generally don't enjoy. That accounts for the nearly seamless eschatology we get from Moscow. Where many RESPSONSIBLE academics, pastors and teachers humbly admit they don't have all the answers, and have to live with certain inconsistencies or unanswered questions, Moscow runs in and straightens all that out for us. But there are exegetical commitments that have to be made to gain the benefits of what Moscow offers. You have to be willing to say "and here, the Lord says...." at places where you might have to wrestle with your conscience. One thing for sure, Moscow will put you to work in your Bible, and that's saying a LOT these days. Can't say the same thing about TGC or T4G any more, and not for a long time.
But Moscow might do well to understand that you could get the same feeling from less desirable groups. Thirty years ago, televangelism put me to work in my Bible also. With much of the same level of frantic concern.
There is another phenomenon that is closer to what we see at Moscow though: dispensationalism. We brush dispy's off now but there was a time when almost ALL the "great minds" and "movers and shakers" in evangelicalism were dispensationalists. We live so close to it, most of us preface our criticisms of dispensationalism with "I admire many dispensationalists, and have learned much from several dispensationalists." Almost all my own personal spiritual mentors were graduates of DTS. We commend dispensationalists for their undeniable commitment to inerrancy through a time when Presbyterians and Baptists were kind of teetering on the edge there. There was a time in the 70's when Southern Baptists were the "strong men" in american evangelicalism. In fact, Moscow has a LONG way to go to matching the political influence of dispensationalism and the Southern Baptist Church specifically. You could make a very strong argument that dispensationalism has had a clear, powerful influence on western foreign policy.
In fact, I see Moscow's iteration of postmil theonomy taking several pages out of the dispensationalist playbook. The evangelicalism that Moscow (rightly) criticizes today is the "Moscow" of the preceeding century. What we have now is a result of what happened then. And this stuff gets down to the Gospel, brothers. The "Lordship salvation debate" is a product of that time dominated by that eschatology. The "free grace" movement, the Pelagian evangelistic practices, revivalist nominalism, on and on we could go all that comes from that same movement that did so much good.
How did this come about? Because dispensationalism became an eschatology that did not keep a Biblical perspective on the role of the state. It did not recognize or even acknowledge what the Reformers taught on why the state and church must be kept separate. It had an improper view of the Law. It had an improper view of the church. It's eschatological framework was preached and accepted as though it were ABSOLUTELY CERTIAN. It was NOT HUMBLE. It attributed to the believer or the church those things which ONLY apply to Christ. It attempted to BRING ABOUT "the end" and created strategies for "ushering in the kingdom" and it did all that under a particular view of what Jesus meant when He gave the Great Commission. As Sam Storms pointed out, there was a time in 80's - early 90's where if you questioned dispensationalism, your salvation was doubtful. And very respectable, faithful preachers would unleash strings of disparaging remarks toward other pastors, theologians and teachers who would dare question the dispensational interpretive framework.
This is all stuff that KDY or someone with more intelligence than me should be talking about. Instead they want to talk about cigars and mean words. Well I like cigars and I'm a Marine so mean words don't scare me. But all of that shows us one of the forceful elements of this whole thing. Where you "fit in" can be a powerful influence.
So right now today, we have DW and Dr. Longshore and Chocolate Knox and even Toby. But how long do we have to wait for the Jerry Falwell of Moscow? How long before we get the postmil Hal Lindsey replaces Kenneth Gentry? Worse than that, what exactly will the "activist" arm of this look like? We saw what it looked like with dispensationalism. What will be the pop theology I will have to face when I evangelize my brother this time? He heard a "left behind" sermon when he as 8 years old and was terrified into getting his fire insurance then, and preaching "around" that false gospel is the single greatest challenge to getting him to see his need for true repentance.
I can only imagine what this will be like if he were baptized as an infant, fed communion as long as he could remember, and has been told his whole life he's already "in the covenant." We've seen all this already, guys.
So what is the actual answer? Well, I've already said too much but to put it simply, an eschatology that does not ultimately end up telling people they need to do what Christ has said only HE can do, in the time that only the FATHER knows. But in my mind, this question has never gotten it's due attention because we're always dealing with folks who step in there and start telling us all what to do, like they're acting squad boss at infantry training school.
I think one thing that would be effective is for a historic premil to stand up and present that view with the same certainty and conviction as the Moscow postmil theonomists. Any of the views can be presented with that same force of logical consistency and aggressive conviction. It's just that most don't because they do not consider that to be a humble attitude or living with the proper fear of God and His word. But I think if that could be at least demonstrated, and how an entire program could be built around that kind of commitment to an eschatological framework, maybe it would at least inform believers that there is a need for humility and objectivity when it comes to these things. It might help folks keep things in their proper order, with the Gospel as primary in all matters of theology and life.
Oh look, an actual critique! I’m not even saying I agree with it all, but well done brother. Why is it so hard for evangelical elites to muster up real criticism like men instead of this christianese stuff than makes them sound like flaky politicians?
@@tropicalpines4585 I think in many cases that DW has pointed out, it is indeed cowardice and/or compromise that is at work. But in many other cases it's not that simple. I don't think KDY deserves a lot of the criticism he's getting online that I see. I think he deserves MY criticism haha.
But really all that is part of what irritates me about all this. The main issues aren't really KDY or DW or even "Big Eva." It's about the SCRIPTURES. God's word is not the center of all these discussions.
So when I note above that theology is "front and center" at Moscow, while everyone who criticizes DW keeps saying they WON'T engage in his theology, I don't necessarily mean that I think Moscow regularly puts a filled-out theology on the table for folks to take or leave. I think they market themselves WITHOUT doing that. What people see is the "money beet" of DW's particular theology.
But they get away with that because no one engages their theology. I think a lot of the reason is that academic etiquette that is pervasive among pastors with the kind of background KDY has. So DW speaks christianese with the best of em, don't think he doesn't. He just doesn't do it when he's talking TO ME AND YOU. When he talks to us he has a flamethrower in his hand.
Now it's not that DW is hiding anything from you. You can buy and read all his books. But as well as DW writes, his blogging style is like a truffle. In my mind, all his books basically provide plausible deniability when folks start calling him out on the flamethrower.
It might sound like I'm saying that Moscow is being nefarious. I don't really think that's the case. I just think they are UTTERLY CONVINCED they are right about many things that orthodox, Bible-believing Christians have always maintained there are acceptable degrees of variance. Issues LIKE eschatology (especially the millennium), covenant theology, baptism, communion, etc. So they admit this is the case on one hand, but will suggest you are a coward if you are premillennial. It's like "yeah there is variance.....but we are right, and if you don't agree then you have a 'loser' mentality." I have often heard it suggested that if you don't lick up their brand of postmillennialism, you are actually saying that JESUS "lost."
The fact is, Moscow AGREES there are diverse orthodox positions on these subjects. They have to, otherwise they would probably be exiled by EVERYONE. Moscow has some pretty unique distinctives in their denominational communion.....co-founded by DW.
Am I saying they should admit every single little thing that might raise an eyebrow somewhere in evangelicalism? Nope, not saying that. But I am saying that it is not even-handed, and might even be hypocritical, to suggestively (or outright) disparage those OUTSIDE your communion for taking divergent positions on matters of eschatology when YOU YOURSELF are divergent, even in your own tradition. I hear the most criticism of DW coming from PRESBYTERIANS, and I suppose that is as it should be, since that is the broad tradition in Moscow.
As much as I talk, I can bottom line things. At the end of the day, Moscow is calling for BIG GOVERNMENT. Big government that has the power to control your personal life and truncate (or even eliminate) your constitutional rights. They're actually "Progressive" in the sense that they fully aim to build a Utopia. They want to build heaven on earth just as badly as the biggest flaming atheist in Congress. They are almost nearly the precise opposite side of the Progressive political cult that we all know is a threat. They may rightly point out problems with contemporary evangelicalism and dispensationalism. But I strongly suspect the solution they are offering is a mirage. It's actually going to PERPETUATE the very things they claim to oppose. Because it's really just the same program we've already lived with, just reorganized, maybe with the worst features made stronger. Dispensationalism and Moscow's postmil theonomy BOTH have us doing the exact same thing just for different reasons.
So you have to ask yourself, just how different is ANY of it REALLY. Pastors with academic backgrounds who nice-guy everything for our own good, are coming across as pretentious and compromising in our eyes. But you can't toss me a flamethrower when you get clearly annoyed when I ask you about Federal Vision or covenant theology and make me feel any better about it. There is a sense in which BOTH groups are treating us like chumps man....whether they necessarily mean to or not. And I doubt they really do.
Best thing we can do is pray for ALL these folks and read our Bibles. I really don't have a problem with cigars or flamethrowers, so I guess I disagree with KDY there. But you gotta use the Bible to change my beliefs about what the Bible teaches; a flamethrower isn't the right tool for convincing me to become postmil
So much of what you wrote was excellent!!! Great insights. You should read the Crec constitutions, book of church order and Federalization documents!!!
Did you know the elders of his church can dicpline couples for wanting to marry without or against parental approval?! (But the elders can over rule of course). Read them!!
Lastly I lean amill but am sold on covenant theology, Presbyterian government and pado baptism!
The Moscow Mood as libido dominandi:
ruclips.net/video/ujLmX1v7dk8/видео.html
Has anyone addressed DeYoung’s critique of Doug’s use of vulgar words?
What I have watched so far seems to avoid that topic, but I haven’t watched all the responses.
I would move to Moscow the SBC has been falling apart they should of put Voddie in charge, it’s holding on because there are good faithful men still in the convention but it’s going woke. Kevin is just jealous. Kevin’s been hanging out with Ned Flanders too much, instead of worrying about Moscow he should be trying to do damage control in the SBC and TGC
One thing you can say about those who are moody in a Moscow way. They’ll defend themselves against other Christian’s, but they only seem to punch “left”.
That’s a compliment, for those wondering.
I can't take anyone from the Gospel Coalition seriously. They are exactly the type of people Jesus' brother warned us of in Jude 10.
Kevin is asking for more intellectual humility. Doug Wilson is Psychologically unhealthy, and has been fir several decades. The truth hurts. For my peepective Tim Keller was moree effective in creatiin a mood of intellectual humility instead of hubruis.