Doug Wilson, Neo-Christendom, and Reclaiming America: Why? - Jaran Miller

A simple theological switch by itself, I think, rarely causes someone to switch traditions. I think it also is tied with um how the community and the individual view doctrines as far as like what is essential. What is the line that when you start talking like this or believing this, we're not going to trust you as much anymore, right? So, it affects relationships, right? And I think relationships are as big a factor in actually switching a tradition um as the actual theology. >> I think that God reveals himself to us as much as he wants to. And that is adequate and that is enough. I don't believe that Jesus or Christian Orthodoxy cause me to fill in the mysteries of God and the universe with speculative doctrine. For some, I wonder if the theological shift, the church membership shift, is less about finding the right theology than finding a theology that's a tidy enough to match their temperament. >> Yeah, I I think it's just important to tell a better story, a more beautiful story about the kingdom of God. Um ultimately, that's that's what we wanted to put a a beautiful and compelling vision in front of people of what it means to live um as image bearers, following Jesus, um participating in his renewing work to bring about new creation. And when you tell a beautiful story, um I think that's probably the the most compelling way to combat, you know, problematic stories. >> Well, Jaren, you're one of the founders [music] of Anabaptist Perspectives, and we were um at an event recently, and you brought up a topic that was just really interesting to me that I don't know much about, and I was like, we got to do an episode on this. This is our attempt at it. It is It is a big topic and I'll let you kind of unpack what all we plan to do with this. But I Yeah, I I'm here to learn. I I feel like I have a lot to learn about this topic. So, you've done a lot of research on this and um tell us about why we are doing an episode on Doug Wilson and reformed theology and that whole package uh that we look at um in this episode here. >> Why are we Why are we talking about it? You and I have both seen several Mennonite men in recent years take themselves and their family away from Mennonite tradition into the reformed tradition. That has sometimes been by turn in in terms of just changing a perspective, but it's more often been in terms of changing a perspective and then swapping churches from a Mennonite church to a reformed church. Sometimes that's been a conservative Presbyterian church or sometimes that's been a reformed Baptist church. I think we've both seen both of those happen. And so, we are here to talk about the phenomenon. We'll talk about the reformed tradition and theology and the way its influence is growing. We will also talk about Doug Wilson. To be fair, those are two separate topics. We could talk about reformed theology without talking about Doug Wilson or we could talk about Doug Wilson without talking about reformed theology. But the way we've seen the movement growing and the influencing influencing happening in our circles, the two have gone together. So, we will be somewhat less pointed than we would be capable of being just because those two things tend to go together in our experience. That's what we're here to talk about. We should give some disclaimers. One is that we will not say anything new. Um if you follow the mainstream media in recent years, you will notice that Doug Wilson has been extensively talked about in the mainstream media. Also, in evangelicalism, I've seen him talked about in conjunction with a homeschooling movement and postmillennialism in NPR's media. They did a whole podcast series about that several years ago. We hear Pete Hegseth talked about his theology, his ties to Doug Wilson. Um a year ago in October, Ross Douthat from The New York Times, the biggest newspaper in the world, did an episode with Doug Wilson that went on for more than an hour, and they talked about theocracy, Christian nationalism, and Calvinism. So, for Anabaptist perspective to talk about Doug Wilson and his influence in American culture and politics in the fall of 2026 is for us to be late to the conversation. But, I do think it's worth talking about. The influence has reached Mennonites in recent times. Reagan and I you and I have both observed this. And so, we'll be coming at the topic from that angle. We will be Mennonites talking about why Mennonites might be attracted to this movement. In this episode, we'll also give a Mennonite who swapped his perspectives and church a chance to represent himself. We'll be offering a polemic that says why his arguments for the reformed tradition do not compel us. And we will be offering some questions that are worth consideration in my opinion among Anabaptist people as we live in a world that is increasingly influenced by the reformed tradition as mediated by Canon Press. Doug Wilson >> Tell us what can Canon Press What is Canon Press and how it relates to Doug Wilson? Cuz they have I was watching some of their stuff on on YouTube and whatever. It's like, "Okay, this is unique, you know, and different than what I'm used to seeing." I guess is the words that come to mind. >> Yeah, we should talk about that. There are a cluster of institutions that Doug Wilson either started or has been very close to, centered in Moscow. Some people say it Moscow. I don't know if it's Moscow or Moscow. Could be wrong, but I'll keep saying Moscow. Moscow, Idaho is the hub of several institutions that Doug Wilson started. New Saint Andrews College is one. Logos School Canon Press and the church called Christ Church. Several institutions there in the same city. And they are representative of the perspectives that Doug Wilson promotes. So, that's um a conservative adaptation of Presbyterian tradition um a particular type of theocracy. I don't know. There's a There's a cluster of ideas there that get promoted by Canon Press and those institutions. >> Could you give a little definition of terms, broadly speaking? You mentioned theocracy um post-millennialism. These are I think these may be terms we've heard, but honestly, I have not thought or heard about say post-millennialism discussed in a serious manner. And I would I would actually struggle to even define what is that? And I know they have kind of their unique blend, but those are going to kind of come up in these conversations as we go along. Tell me more about what those are. >> So, theocracy, if you just think of the etymology, um theo, referring to God, Um, cracy, theocracy. The cracy part is about rule. Um, so basically the rule of God. The way it might be applied in this conversation is that the law of God should be applied to the way that civil governments are operated. >> Is that Okay. >> Now that's not a that's not a super detailed or nuanced definition, but in the way it's often used in just normal conversations might be connected to Christian nationalism, where it's the idea that America might be better off as a Christian nation and it should be operated as though it is. And we should see God's law, especially as presented in the Old Testament, as what should be the norms for how America is run. Postmillennialism, again, I won't be able to do it justice or give it all the nuance that the topic deserves, but the general idea is that it is a perspective of eschatology or the trajectory of how God is taking the world that is not premillennialism and is not amillennialism. So it is It's an eschatological perspective. The general idea is that God is taking the world into more full fulfillment of his kingdom. The work of the church is to bring that about. And the arc of history is towards the kingdom of God through the church being more and more enacted in the world. A piece of that is the church and the kingdom of God having more and more say in governments. So it's a type of optimism in contrast to doom and gloom dispensational premillennialism. And it's more material than amillennialism. Um in a minute here we'll have on a a contributor who talks about his perspectives and he'll give more definition to that. >> But it generally it seems to be very different from the kind of premillennialist or dispensationalist or whatever view of deterioration um before the end of all things and so forth. Like this is saying actually a bit of the opposite. Which is a bit new, right? Like that's something I haven't really encountered. I don't think I've encountered that particular perspective before. >> The perspective has been around for quite a long time, but I think we are seeing a resurgence of it. >> So I'm just looking at this and being like what this is a huge topic. I mean we'll we'll never cover all that there is to it. Um people spend their lives, you know, in this in this stuff, but yeah, I I will say that it does it does feel pre- pretty relevant. Uh it feels like particularly Doug Wilson just because he happens to be the the the person we're engaging with the most here, I guess, but um has has really gone mainstream in the last few years. I remember him being this really kind of quirky barely hear of this guy to like you said in New York Times piece, you know, NPR, like big you know, big mainstream outlets are engaging with this in a in a in a level or perhaps I should say taking it cer- more seriously than I would have expected. Um which is I guess a bit of a surprise and so that's kind of a new thing. I don't I don't even quite know what all that means, but I guess that's the piece I'm trying to get my head around is why is this so appealing to so many people? Clearly it is, you know, it's it's having an influence. Uh and that's I think the piece that trying to unpack that in this in this episode. So, let's let's look at our next uh chunk here. Um So, before this uh conversation you and I are having, you had actually did an interview with someone who had been Mennonite and um switched to reformed, actually moved out to um Moscow, Idaho and is part of Doug Wilson's church and and so forth. Do you want to give a little introduction to that? And then we're going to do something a bit different on this episode where we'll be um actually playing a segment of that interview here and then we'll have some reflections on it. And then we actually have another segment from um a different contributor uh on this topic as well later on. And so we're kind of piecing together multiple pieces to try to to kind of get to what is at the core of of what's going on here. Um yeah, but what introductions would you have for the uh segment we're about to play here? >> Well, you already gave a little introduction to Landon. In recent years, he did swap from his Mennonite church to a church in the Communion of Reformed Evangelicals, which is a conservative Presbyterian denomination. And you know, as you and I were planning for this episode, it seemed to me that we could make some informed speculations about why somebody might want to make a swap like Landon did. In the way the media talks about it, we could maybe speculate that there's an exciting and grand vision for the world. There's a novelty. There's a manliness. There's a concrete vision forward and it's certain and it's confident and maybe those kinds of things would attract somebody to making a swap in their church tradition. But that would just be speculation. So, we were like, we should just talk to somebody who's made that swap and ask him. Let him defend his own perspective and um talk about why he would make that swap. And that would be better than us just sitting here speculating. So, that's what we did. Um when I talked with Landon, he had more than 10 points. And he and I agreed that that would be too much for this podcast. Um So, what we are going to do is play a clip where he talks about the four most important reasons. He talks about doctrine, specifically what he calls big God theology, relationships, covenantal theology, and the change in the perspective on the two kingdoms and what the world is. Before we get into it, I must admit that this was a much more sophisticated set of reasons than I might have expected based on the way that the movement has often been discussed. Landon did not tell any scintillating stories about the submission of women, whiskey, flame throwers, the kinds of things that Canon Press shows to the world. He has some comments on those kinds of things, but notice that when we get to that point in the clip, I pushed him to talk about that. He did not choose that it was one of his most important reasons for swapping church traditions. So, as you listen for the next 17 minutes, remember that this is a reformed apologetic. It's not the perspective of Anabaptist perspectives. We want you to know about the perspective. And we think that it's something worth taking seriously, not being taken just as a straw man we set up to knock down. So, take this seriously, but we're not asking you to adopt this perspective for yourself. In fact, we would think that's a mistake. So, here is a clip with Landon Miller. Well, Landon, thank you so much for joining us to talk about this. I'll start with the first question of what attracted you to swapping your perspective or your church affiliation away from Mennonite to reformed? >> It was a journey really. Um, about seven years of wrestling with theology, um, reading and asking questions and seeking answers and such. Um, but I think the first initial steps were just uh, what some would call big God theology. Um, just the idea and I remember this from when I was a teenager even. Um, Westminster Shorter, um, number one, what is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. And so that was probably the biggest thing that I kind of made that, I would say, the controlling idea, um, in my life that it's it's all about God's glory and I think that, um, made it easy to embrace a perspective that said, well, yes, God is absolutely sovereign. That was kind of the initial uh, the initial draw. Um, I think I think then as you work through things there's a there's an interaction with your community that, um, kind of determines how things shake out, I guess I would is the way I would put it. Because I think a simple theological switch by itself, I think, rarely causes someone to switch traditions. I think it also is tied with, um, how the community and the individual view doctrines as far as like what is essential, what uh, what is the line that when you start talking like this or believing this, we're not going to trust you as much anymore, right? So it affects relationships, right? And I think relationships are as big a factor in actually switching a tradition, um, as the actual theology. >> So for you, am I understanding correctly, it was theological as a starting point, but then when the theology began to affect the way you're able to have relationships, that was a further step in having you swap traditions. >> Correct. Yes. So I was I mean I was in education. I was teaching people's kids. And so I felt a a weight the weight of that responsibility just like I always did no matter my theological perspective. There's always that weight when you're teaching. And then over time as you as you hear okay, there are actually there is actually some maybe some distrust or some suspicion about the direction you're going. That affects the way you see your place in the community and in the way and the attractiveness of something else as well. So there are are those broader dynamics, I guess, that affect decisions like these. So like I said, that was kind of the first step. And then but I would say kind of the hinge where things really accelerated and really changed my perspective in a big way. That was more the when I ran into the covenantal perspective. And because that that touches on everything. And and I actually came to the covenantal perspective through eschatology. I wanted to understand Revelation. I tackled it a few times, and I found the preterist understanding of Revelation to be the most persuasive. That the main discussion in Revelation, the main issue is the destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD. And that led me to postmillennialism where I said, "Wait a minute, if this is if this is the reality of how the covenant the old covenant was in a sense ended and the new covenant and and so we have all this uh we have Matthew 24 which is often taken as a proof of the world is going to deteriorate and and here's all the bad stuff that's going to happen in the end. Um, if that's actually about AD 70 maybe I need to reevaluate the actual kingdom age and what's actually coming in the future. And then you run into passages uh like Psalm 2 and Psalm 100 um and passages about uh that that speak very positive positively about the coming of the kingdom and and what the kingdom is. So, that led me into postmillennialism just to cut that short. Once I hit postmillennialism that gave me this this structure of not just the end times but of history as a whole from the beginning that Wait a minute, this was actually the goal from the beginning was for the knowledge of the glory of the Lord to fill the earth as the waters cover the sea, right? This was This is the plan all along. This is what God is doing throughout history and the covenantal structure gives more continuity to that. It support I believe it supports that view really. And so once you hit covenantal theology and you see that scripture is from the promise of the coming Messiah in Genesis 3:15 um all the way through to Abraham and the establishment of the covenant with him into the new covenant, you realize that wait, this is actually all one people, one plan, one story and where the reformed perspective defines itself is by saying this is one covenant of grace, right? All these covenants are covered by one covenant of grace and so there's continuity. Um when Jesus came, he wasn't um establishing something that was not there before. He was the um he was the the antitype for all these types. He was the true seed of Abraham. He was Abraham's son. He was coming as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. And so we have continuity there. Um we don't have something brand new. We're not starting over with a new structure. Um we are maintaining the same structure of the covenant that was given to Abraham. Uh and and that of course touches on infant baptism and ecclesiology and and a whole lot of things. But kind of coming back around to my story, it really touches on the Sermon on the Mount and how you interpret that. Um because if we're not setting up a new covenant here. Yes, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is a type of Moses. Um he's on the mountain giving instruction. Um but Jesus isn't starting a new stan- setting up a new standard or a new law. Um he is he is correcting the abuses of the religious leaders, what they were teaching and so on. And so that continuity really I I felt I felt the the distance really theologically really happened at that point. So one perspective and this was largely what I would have experienced growing up. The perspective was either outright taught or just assumed that um you don't you don't see the Old Testament as normative unless it's repeated in the New Testament. Whereas the reverse is what I came to which is we see the Old Testament as normative and continuing unless the New Testament specifically does away with it, right? Abrogates it. So, there's a there's a higher bar basically for changing things, right? From the way it was under the um old covenant. Drilling down to the precise differences can be challenging sometimes. So, um there may be people, if they listen to parts of that, who are like, I believe that. I believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Like, yeah, and I think that's one of the if I can throw this in as well, that's also if we're just thinking more general, um my I guess I would say critique or what I what I struggled with was >> [clears throat] >> I was coming to a perspective that was much more um theologically precise and defined, but I was coming from something that was less intellectually uh rigorous. Uh whether this is I mean, it's it's partly a feature of Anabaptism, but it's also just the conservative Mennonite world um with maybe some evangelical flavor. Um but coming from that, there's a lack of definition on a lot of things. And so, that can be um that can be frustrating sometimes. Um trying to nail down, wait, so what do you mean by that? Um you know, speaking in more general terms about things. There's a clear like signal that goes off in people's heads when you say something they don't that that is kind of outside of what they think should is correct or should be normal. Um but there's not a clear like, oh, here's where the line is. We can delineate this clearly. And so, that's one of the challenges and um yeah, I guess I I I guess the differences um that I experienced. I value confessionalism a lot. Um and that's that's part of that as well, like you know, clearly defining um beliefs and boundaries and and So, so there's a charity ability and a willingness to discuss and disagree, um but a uh but still clear lines, right? Oh, this is what we believe. This is what we confess. Yeah, it it does we don't have to exclude each other from the from the kingdom even over those drawing different lines on various issues. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. So, uh you were listing several things. You started with doctrine, then we talked about relationships, and covenantalism. I think those are the three I caught. Um was there more? >> I I think one of the ones that comes up in conversations a fair amount is the Anabaptist perspective, the the two-kingdom perspective, and also the way that the world is defined, or what is the world? In my background, the world was just seen generally as the culture out there. Um or as I think some Anabaptist writers have more precisely defined it as the kingdom of darkness. Um but either either way, um I would disagree with both of those perspectives. The idea of the world that that you often hear in the Anabaptist and Mennonite uh perspective, um in in my opinion takes um applies to culture too much and too often is applied to that too often. So, there's there's a bit of a dualism I think in that, um where we have a uh where we have this sharp distinction, uh like we have to be separate culturally, um as well. And and I wouldn't necessarily wholeheartedly disagree with that. I would say it depends on the culture, of course, and what exactly we're talking about. I would say the kingdom of of should be the culture, right? That's That's again kind of getting a little post-millennial. Um maybe just um the transfer a more transformational perspective. Um I don't know if you're familiar with the different perspectives of Christ relating to culture. Um so like Christ against culture, Christ above culture, um and then Christ the redeemer of culture. Um and what I experienced was very much a Christ against culture. Like this is we separate, we pull back, and I'm much more in a Christ the redeemer of culture perspective now. Where it's like, no, we need to actually be producing culture and involved in culture and uh we need to be to a degree, we need to be normal people um in the cult in the surrounding culture. And the world, we don't want to be part of the world, but the world is what Paul talks about when he talks about um put to death what is earthly um in you. Um and then lists uh has a list of sins there. And then first John, where he says uh the world with its passions and lusts and um I don't have that passage memorized, but is passing away. And I think it it needs to be reserved for um things that are actually outside the kingdom. Um outside of righteousness. >> If you live in Moscow, Idaho, and you're a Calvinist, the world has been primed to think about Doug Wilson. >> Yes. Yes. >> And I I'll let you comment on whether or not that's fair. But another thing they'll be primed to think about well, other things is masculinity. >> Mhm. >> No quarter November, including alcohol and making fun of the Southern Baptist Convention. >> Yes. >> Women shouldn't vote. Um patriarchy. Kevin DeYoung's feud with him a while back about the Moscow mood and >> yes. >> Mhm. >> What attracted us to Moscow specifically was, I would say, well, it's reformed and Presbyterian, uh which is the persuasion that we were uh we were at, but also just the fact that it was a big community and there was a very high emphasis on Christian education. Those were honestly the biggest two. Um but you can't talk about Logos School and New Saint Andrews College and all these educational institutions and and the size of the community without talking about uh Doug Wilson. I mean, because he started Logos School, he started New Saint Andrews. Um and so I was told by it was actually another Presbyterian. He basically said, "Oh, you're moving for Doug Wilson." And and I was like, "Oh, I'd never really thought about it that way. Um I guess yes, he built some of these or started helped start some of these institutions, so uh I guess he definitely had a hand in uh the attractiveness um of Moscow. Um the masculinity thing, maybe I came into realized who Doug Wilson is too late uh to run into some of the major issues in that regard or controversies. Um I mean, I would I'm happy with the word patriarchy um because coming back to the historical rootedness, I think that's the traditional Christian perspective. You're a man, you're created this way. Um you need to not be afraid of failure and be afraid of being out in front and um being mocked or or whatever. You need to uh do your duty, you need to lead. The buck stops with you um in a lot of regards. If your family is failing, um you're the head and so you are responsible. I found that perspective to actually be to be very helpful and difficult sometimes, I would say. Um because um yeah, I'm I'm naturally not a big, bold, loud, out-front type person. Um and so, realizing, wait, there is actually this weight on my shoulders. Um and I actually do need to take that seriously. So, Kevin DeYoung's article um I I think, and this is this is my perspective and the perspective of friends I have here on a lot of what gets said about Moscow from whether it's Kevin DeYoung or others. Um I think it's largely gleaned from um online stuff. Um so, whether it's whether it's Blog and Mayblog, uh Doug Wilson's blog, and No Quarter November, and some of the aesthetic and the media that's put out Canon Press gets pretty spicy sometimes uh with things they put out. And so, there's kind of this advertising from some of the organizations and the uh I don't know if you I guess you'd call them the the higher-ups, the people who are actually running some of these organizations. Um so, there's kind of this mood that's that's put out. And it's not that we don't like it as the the normal, the people in the pew, but it's it's not what everyone is running around doing, I guess is what I would say. Um I found that the the little bit I heard about that um before I moved, and then moving here, I found the people in the pew to be very normal and uh sincere in their faith, pretty much just busy raising their kids every day. >> Yeah, so as an outsider listening to the media, mainstream and otherwise, what you just described as peripheral tends to come to the surface and be the main thing. Whereas for you, you started with doctrine and more substantive things and getting to the aesthetic and the culture as a more a less significant concern. >> Right. Um, I actually found the culture to be somewhat familiar in the in the way that it prioritizes hard work and raising kids faithfully. I mean, that was definitely a values that I grew up with. Um, and so that the culture as a whole I found very familiar. And also a lot of the attacks are attacks that would also apply to the culture I came from, right? So, uh, lots of like angst about uh, why do you say men are the head of the home or how dare you say women can't be pastors, things that we would have as Mennonites would have just said, "Yeah, that's kind of common sense." So, there was the a lot of overlap in that regard, I guess. >> Yeah, so we want to thank Landon for uh, giving us his time and uh, doing that interview with you, uh, Jaren. And yeah, I think you had a good point there. It's it's is important that we don't straw man these things, but actually, you know, what do these people say and um, seriously engage with that uh, perspective. So, uh, I want to do a little bit of that here. I'd like to hear your responses to the four main points that he brought out in that section uh, there, Jaren. So, however you want to do those in what order, but what response would you have to Landon? >> First, to reiterate, I think it was a thoughtful, sophisticated um, set of reasons that took him the way that he went. And again, you've only heard the first four of his 10 points that he brought to me. So, I want to respond to it, but it's not going to be just a a perfect Calvinist takedown. When I respond to his points, it'll be more like, "Well, what about this?" Um isn't there this other perspective? And so, it's me processing out loud the kinds of resistance that I feel um to the arguments he brings and why I feel personally it's adequate. If I were to change perspective my perspective, you're going to hear from me the things that would have to be solved in my mind. So, his first point was about big God theology. If I'm understanding him right, this is the thing that makes me most charmed by Calvinism. When I hear people like John Piper obsessing over God being glorified, I personally feel kind of wretched both because of my smallness compared to God and his glory and also my lack of piety compared to John Piper. But, the fixation on God's glory never seemed enough to me. Now, I'm not saying that I think that John Piper, Landon Miller, Doug Wilson think that the fact that Calvinism elevates God's glory that being enough of a case to decide that Calvinism is better than Arminianism. But, in the way that I hear them present the case, it's often presented as a cover story. Calvinism is better than other views because it does better justice to God's bigness and his glory. So, I have two complaints about it. First, here's my more superficial one. I believe that God will be glorified how God wants to be glorified. If it happens to be that that happens through him having all the agency and sovereignty and humans having none, then he will be glorified despite my misunderstandings. And if, on the other hand, his glory comes through a way that it counts for human agency, then it's actually abusive to God's reputation to insist that God is more glorified when the world operates according to the parameters of a given theological system. I hear Calvinism often framing sovereignty as the most God-glorifying option. But the Bible never says God is most glorified by meticulous determinism. I think that the danger is confusing God's glory with a theological system that claims to maximize God's glory. And those two things are not the same. I'm afraid that that's sometimes misunderstood. So, that was my first complaint. My second complaint is that the reformed tradition attempts to make a theological system that accounts for God, humanity, and reality. It's a tidy system that fills the gaps in our understanding with speculation. And that's kind of the crux of my second complaint here. It's the speculation. It gives a compelling answer to questions that the Bible doesn't raise and never promised to answer. One of the things we heard Landon talk about is the way he values clear definitions and nuance and theologically precise and defined positions. I think that God reveals himself to us as much as he wants to. And that is adequate and that is enough. And I believe that he reveals himself to us enough that we can trust him, but not to systematize him. So, while I can appreciate the tidiness of Calvinism, and more broadly the reformed tradition, its tidiness doesn't really compel me because it tries to systematize God to an extent that is greater than the way that God has revealed himself to us. >> I think that's a key piece there, though, isn't it? Where there's this desire to bring definition, structure, um you know, really define the theology. Like, this is exactly what we believe. I mean, that's that's John Calvin, right? And in the 1500s being very meticulous and thorough in defining things that I get and I can see how that'd be very appealing to a lot of people. I think that's a huge piece. So, yeah, I definitely definitely caught that when Landon said that. You know, that that was something that that he found helpful. >> Mhm. Yeah, and it's a real thing. I I think I can sympathize with the attraction to that. So, you know, in an ideal world, maybe I would have an alternative to Calvinism that rivals its beauty and its tidiness and its certainty. And a system that answers all the same questions that Calvinism answers, but differently. But, you know, maybe that's not the ideal. I don't believe that Jesus or Christian orthodoxy calls me to fill in the mysteries of God and the universe with speculative doctrine. >> Mhm. >> Jesus and his kingdom, self-sacrificing means of saving us, and his call for us to follow his teachings and the example that he gave us through his life is beautiful. And the understanding of the gospel that includes sacrificial love that rules out violence towards our enemies and leads the way that directly opposes the methods of the empires of this world is beautiful. And I don't think that it's beautiful because it gives us a better more tidy understanding of the questions that Calvinism raises. I think Jesus is pointing us in a direction and that direction is through his example and that direction does not necessarily require theological precision. So I don't know. Maybe the maybe the most fair way to do this would be to actually have a debate where this back and forth. I'm trying to anticipate what Landon might say to that and he unfortunately isn't here to answer that. I'm not sure if that would be adequate to somebody who's looking for a tidy theology. It's a different set of questions. >> Yeah. Like cuz yeah, cuz you have John Calvin in the 1500s and he's just meticulously, you know, very thoroughly detailed defining this that, you know, whatever. And he's he's he's a brilliant writer, you know, I mean there's a reason people still read his stuff. And then you have the early Anabaptists at the same time in the same city, interestingly enough, and they're just not really doing it to that level. Um they're not trying to to build these elaborate theological frameworks and structures. You have the Schleitheim Confession, I guess, you know, right around the same time, which actually Calvin writes a a pamphlet against it and calls it a horrible heresy, and etc., which is an interesting read. Um but that's about the most you get from that era. And it [clears throat] just shows a fundamentally different starting point. Um and so it's kind of hard to even I don't know if we can even really compare these because like you said it's a different set of questions. >> Mhm. >> Um and it makes it a little hard to know quite what to do with it. If yeah, anyway, I'm not sure if that was helpful at all, but that's just kind of the pieces that bounce around in my head, you know. >> Yeah, what to do with it? Some people say it's a bug, I say it's a feature. And so What to do with it is the question. >> What do you mean a bug versus a feature? Yeah, like >> So a bug was it a bug in the sense of that's a problem. So to folks like Landon they see the lack of precision in theology as a problem. And I would say it's a feature and it's a good thing in that it demonstrates that the emphasis is somewhere else. And I think I think it's a more appropriately placed emphasis. >> That that explains it nicely. Yeah. Mhm. So he So he's We started with this first of of his points there big out theology. The next point he had had to do with relationships. So that's a pivot, you know, from nicely defined theological constructs and things. Talk to me about that. >> Well, I just have a lot of sympathy actually and I would say that's part of his story and it's hard to argue with and it's a it's a real thing. Um Brian Zahnd said in one of his books that a person with an experience isn't at the mercy of a person with an argument. And so this relationships argument isn't so much an argument as just the way a person experiences life. And all I can say is that it's sad when differences and differences over doubtful doctrines drive apart relationships. Some more concrete response is actually a speculation. I think the Mennonite world might treat doctrinal drift as relation- relational drift. That might be a thing. I think that maybe the reformed world often treats doctrinal precision as relational glue. >> You might be onto something there. I've I've never thought of it. Of those two points like that before. And they could go they could go together. >> Maybe some Mennonites see doctrinal precision as relational glue. But often I don't think we have a lot of attention to the doctrinal precision, but we might have attention to doctrinal drift. And that that can affect relationships. Anyways, I think that the question is about the social mechanisms for belonging. I have more questions than profound things to say about it. But I can offer my questions. And the first one, is there a place in the Mennonite church or is there a place in the Mennonite churches for those who don't agree with the doctrinal consensus? Follow-up questions, that is, what can belonging look like in Mennonite churches for those who don't agree with the doctrinal consensus? I've seen it happen. I know it can happen. But I think there's still some open questions there of what what should that look like? And I think that these are big questions and pastoral questions and maybe they're dangerous. So I'll leave them as questions. But I do welcome charitable feedback. Either to me directly or in the comments or as a conversation piece with those who are near and dear to you. >> So then he he pivots into another point here that this one I'm I'm sure a lot of our audience will disagree with, right? In in in the Mennonite lands, I guess you could say. Uh the covenantal theology uh uh aspect and he gets into a bunch of different pieces there, but talk to me about that. What did you think of that section cuz I'm listening through that and like, "Whoa, yeah, I okay, I disagree with that." You know, um but I yeah, I'd like to hear how you would engage with it. >> first of all, I work for Anabaptist Perspectives. So, obviously, I am attuned to this and those who listen regularly will be attuned to the fact that several months ago we published an episode with J. Allen Staltzfus on dispensationalism. I don't know exactly how dispensationalism and covenantalism relate, but I think that they are opposing views. So, when we talk about this, we're treading water treading on a topic that really stirred up some of our audience several months ago. Yeah. So, that was the That was the first thing that came to mind. People feel passionately about this. >> Yes. >> But, I want to actually to get into the substance, I want to do a little bit of Bible thumping and say that I struggle I struggle to unsee certain types of discontinuity that Jesus emphasized. >> Well, and that's kind of Landis' point. He's arguing for continuity. >> Yeah. >> Is that right? So, so you're seeing this is like, "Wait a minute." >> Yeah. >> Yes, Landis is seeing a lot of continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Which I think is appropriate, but I'm afraid that I heard him ruling out certain types of discontinuity that Jesus emphasized. So, Matthew 5 is probably the best and brightest example. Jesus presents himself as the fulfillment of what came before. And in this fulfillment, he says, "You have heard it said, but I say to you." And some of the "You have heard it said" piece were ethics that were congruent with the Old Testament. So, I think that I would propose that if we don't see the ethics of the New Testament in some ways improving upon, overriding, or in other ways taking priority over Old Testament ethics, then I fear that we've misunderstood an important piece of Jesus' own understanding of how he fulfills the old covenant. Now, again, this is this is a topic that's loaded with people's passions. It's theologically significant, and so maybe it's dangerous for me to be talking about this without having a more clear vision of what I mean. But, I'm I'm afraid that covenantalism as Landis described it doesn't give adequate place to discontinuity that Jesus himself talked about. So, in other words, if we see covenantalism as a doctrine that doesn't see the Sermon on the Mount as offering anything different from the Old Testament when it's rightly understood, I think that that's a very strange position. And I don't think it's supported by what Jesus said, and it's not supported by how the early Christians understood Jesus' teaching. And what when I say that, I'm thinking of Ron Sider's book The Early Church on Killing, which is a survey of what early pre-Nicene Christians said about killing. So, obviously, in the Old Testament, God gives the Israelites space for capital punishment, for war under certain conditions. Maybe that's the end of the list. Those are the two two ways that God authorized um killing. Jesus offered something new, and loving our enemies in a way that ruled out killing. And I think that there's a pretty good case that the first Christians understood Jesus to be teaching something different from what God expected from the ancient Israelites. I'm not sure that Calvinism allows for that. >> Mhm. >> And in so doing it sets itself at odds with what Jesus meant and the way the first Christians understood Jesus and as I'd be I'd be nervous about taking a position that only sees continuity and doesn't acknowledge the discontinuities. Now again, I'm sure Landon would have more to say about this. So Landon, I guess you're listening. Um feel free to give us more feedback, respond in the comments or point us in a direction that could help us understand how Calvinism would respond to that critique. But it is one that I think is serious. It's one I take seriously and would be a pretty big hurdle for me to undo that. >> I I think that's going to be the one out of out of this list that's going to stick out to people of like, "Whoa, I'm you know, that's the point where I would disagree." Whichever side you you take on this issue cuz like you said, this is like theological minefield kind of like is the idea that he comes to my mind is like be careful where you go. There's tripwires everywhere, you know, cuz there are I mean people get you know, this this is pretty serious stuff. And it and it is. It is important and it is serious. But I yeah, I have to say too is like listening through it is like, "Ooh, yeah, I I I I I I'm just not there, you know, I just I disagree with that." Um but it is interesting too you're bringing out that episode um we had done with Julian uh which which seems to be like on a completely different end of the spectrum. But again, I think it is this is a particularly important one to reflect on and think about. >> If nothing else, one thing Landon is doing here is showing us the way eschatology affects the the we live in the here and now. Like often questioned about premillennialism or dispensationalism or not, might bring up questions like, "What is the significance of the nation-state of Israel coming back in the 1940s?" And it's more like, "Where Where's God going with this? What's going to happen in the future? What can we expect Russia and Iran to do next?" But Landon is showing a way that this eschatology has bearing on the way we understand the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. >> That That's the That's valid. I think he does that particularly brilliantly. Yeah, I didn't think about that. That is a great point. Um Yeah, it definitely brings it to the here and now. Uh Okay, so so we're we're All right, we're trying to navigate the theological landmines and so forth, but then there's a whole other set of um controversy. And that was the next piece that that I think you want to hit here. Um uh It's the title of of the article, right? The Moscow Mood um or something like that. Is that right? Is that where that term comes from? Um >> It's a term that um Kevin DeYoung used in a blog post looking at what's happening in Moscow, Idaho. And so it's a term that I used in my conversation with Landon. But I I think the mood The mood is a is a good term. There's a culture, a tone, an aesthetic that goes along with the way that what's going on out there gets presented to the world. >> Yeah, definitely. >> To be fair, the way it presents itself to the world. I think we ought to point out that Landon deemphasized the significance of the culture and aesthetic and tone of Doug Wilson and Canon Press. In contrast, he emphasized that most people there are just going about their normal lives, raising their families, working hard, and are there for a plethora of reasons other than Wilson's persona and the online culture that's been cultivated. Landon at one point made the connection between Moscow, Idaho and Lancaster, Pennsylvania and talking about the familiarity of what he feels there. And I accept what Landon says and I totally believe him. I totally believe him when he names the important reasons for his switching tradition and churches being fundamentally doctrinal. However, there are several reasons that I'm not quite satisfied with the way he talked about that. First, if there is indeed such a strong mismatch between what's projected by Wilson and Canon Press and what's actually happening in Moscow at Christ Church etc. then Wilson has a major PR problem. And I think it's one that they have either caused or contributed to. They are well aware of the reputation and they haven't done things I don't know if they've done anything from my perspective, they haven't worked very hard to change the public perception. And a piece of me wonders if there's more to it than what Landon is letting on. And I I hope he can forgive my suspicion here. I hope the world can forgive my suspicion. >> Mhm. >> But I I hope that there's some sympathy with me if I wonder if the aggressive aggressive aesthetic and tone is part of the appeal. When the aggressive aesthetic and tone is the main thing that's been projected by those institutions and Wilson for the past few years. If the aggressive aesthetic is not the main thing, then why is the aggressive aesthetic so aggressively put forward on the internet? >> You know, I was going through a bunch of Doug Wilson's stuff, especially his No Quarter November thing. It's just a playlist on on the Canon Press YouTube channel. And I just came away from that just being like, this this guy is a a genius marketer. This is marketing, and he's very good at it. It is a very is very much a vibe. You know, you cannot it like you can't mistake it for anything else. There's a very clear direction he's going and portraying. I don't know. I Maybe we could reflect on this a little because it it is appealing to a lot of people. It I get this sense in me that's in the videos, too. This sense of we are you know, fortifying ourselves against the evils of of society, all the all the issues that they see that are out there. Um many of which are probably very genuine problems, issues. And so, people This is me totally speculating. Now, I'd love to hear what you think. But people want to feel safe and like they can be in a place that's going to fight back against that for the safety of their families, for the betterment of the next generation, and they're maybe tired at again, speculation, but tired of people kind of beating around the bush and capitulating to your compromise. And so, to have someone come forward who is, you know, let's say, sitting on a couch smoking a cigar, lighting the couch on fire, being like, let's go burn some stuff down because we got to take a stand. Or, you know, fly a a pirate flag, you know, be a be a theological pirate, I think. Or there's a tone kind of like something like along those lines in one of the videos. That I think could be really appealing to a lot of people in a in a very unstable, uncertain environment where we don't know where the world's going and you know, what do we believe? Does this not fit with what we were just saying about wanting the clear definition and the theological frameworks and things clearly defined. And when you have that, it's like, okay, here's what we've got. Now, let's defend it against you know, all the evils of the world or whatever language would be used. Could that not be just part of the same package? And yes, it's a kind of a crazy aesthetic where he's pulling out a flamethrower and obliterating, you know, like signs in his yard that are like TikTok and Instagram and Twitter and saying, just don't let this stuff in your house. You know, like that's the whole aesthetic. You know, it's like, alarm, here's this here's these influences coming in. So, he goes out and just blasts them with a flamethrower. Could that be some of the appeal on top of it being just brilliant marketing, honestly? Like from a marketeer's perspective, that's that's genius. What do you think? Am Am I on to something? Am I off? That was my gut reaction watching this stuff. >> I think you're on to something. It seems actually kind of obvious to me. But I think I think what you were giving there is an appropriate exegesis. And one of one of the reasons this is concerning, it's not because I don't like being entertained. Actually, I think I see the humor. I see the appeal. I think it's funny. Each November, I enjoy the new No Quarter November production by Canon Press and Doug Wilson. Like I I get it. The cliché is what you win them with is what you keep them with. And so, that's the piece that I wonder about. If If the marketing the manly aggressive marketing is what wins people, what's the manly aggression that keeps them? >> But that's that's it's got to be there then, right? Right? Like if if this is such a cornerstone of what he's teaching, >> I I think so. One of the things I'm conscious about though is that I'm just speculating. I know that there's people listening to this who are in this camp in that ecosystem and so I would say I do have honest inquisition and want to hear from you. If you If you find yourself in this position, fill in the details that we're missing. This is something we want to understand. >> Yeah, cuz it's also like why why are they doing it? I think that might be part of the question, too. I don't know. Maybe we could call up Doug Wilson and ask him or something. I don't you know. >> [laughter] >> Maybe so. He like He likes going on podcasts. So, you know, maybe maybe we could >> get his attention. >> I'd I'd love to know. I'm just like really curious. Like what's the thought process that goes into the way these things are crafted and curated and made, you know. >> At least at least various marketing sensibilities. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Uh Should we talk more Should we talk more about the emotional appeal from a bit of a different angle? >> Yeah, that that's another point here that I mean it kind of segues nicely with the aesthetic that we were just, you know, talking about here. >> Yeah, like I said before, I want to acknowledge the more I talk, the thinner the ice gets. So, we're just going to embrace that and go out on even thinner ice. And that is the emotional appeal about the assertiveness and definition and wondering if that's as much a temperamental issue as a theological issue. So, in Landon's clip that we played, he talked several times about lack of definition in Mennonite churches and how hard it is to be charitable when the lines aren't clear. This strikes me as a psychological dimension that's worth accentuating. Some people thrive in low-definition environments. On the other hand, some people feel unsafe when there are not clear boundaries. For some, I wonder if the theological shift, the church membership shift is less about finding the right theology than finding a theology that's a tidy enough to match their temperament. That is my Mhm. dangerous speculative question. >> Mhm. Yeah, but I think there's it seems like that has to come into the picture. Here. Isn't Isn't this um an aspect that is pretty well studied even like in religious studies and how certain religions and traditions appeal to people in different ways. And yeah, it seemed it's I think what you're saying seems pretty straightforward to me actually. I don't know quite know what to do with it. I don't know what conclusions could be drawn from that, but I I think I think you're onto something here. Still not quite sure that what to do with it though. I don't know. Do you have more that you would add on this? >> No, I I don't have any more. I just think it's a question worth thinking about. >> Well, should we pivot to the next segment? >> Yeah. >> To to give us some more perspective here. Uh so this was this was particularly fun for me to do this next segment. Um did it with Titus Kiffer, which has been a friend of mine for for years now and um he reached out to Doug Wilson actually uh 6 years I believe 6 years ago and challenged him to a debate on just war theory. Um and we were all a little surprised when um Doug Wilson agreed to to do that. So um it's been years now uh Titus has moved on to some other things and so forth, but a uh got his perspective. What What What's his take on Doug Wilson and why this particular theological package could be appealing to people um and then what he sees as um some real errors and uh some issues uh with that framework. So we'll do this next segment here with Titus and then come back to Jaren and I to reflect on what he says here. So, Titus, we would have first met each other at what, SB I like 10 years ago or something like that. Am I getting that about right? Yeah. >> Yeah, I think that's right. That would have been probably more like 12 years ago, but yeah, something like >> Oh my. We've since went and done kinds of different things and you had a had a podcast for a while. You now live in India doing some stuff over there. So, that's that's really interesting. But, we're not going to be talking about that. There there's a piece of of your story a few years ago you have to give me the details that you challenged Doug Wilson to a debate. I think I'm getting the wording right or the framing right there. And he said yes and you did it and you can go watch it which is just kind of wild to me cuz I remember seeing this and be like, wait a minute my friend Titus is like debating Doug Wilson. That's kind of awesome. Walk me through that. Like when did that happen? How did that go? Why did you even reach out to Doug Wilson and say, "Hey, let's let's talk about" I believe the topic was just war just war theory. >> Yeah, it was probably six or seven years ago. So, it's a little fuzzy how it even came to be, but I probably what I did is just emailed his church or something like that. Um there was a a YouTube channel called Modern Day Debate and yeah, maybe maybe I emailed Modern Day Debate first and was like, "Would you host us if I got Doug?" I'm not sure which way it went, but I was actually quite surprised when when Doug someone from his staff or someone got back to me and was like, "Yeah, we're we're willing to do this." I was a long shot cuz I I was a nobody. You know, I think it it started because there was a short clip that Doug did on just war and I watched that and I'm like, "Yeah, this this needs to be challenged." And so, yeah, I I was pretty scared when he said yes cuz I was like, "This this is pretty wild." And so, I did a lot of research. Like I spent weeks. I remember you know, even being at Sattler College and talking to Dean Taylor and being like asking him questions like how can I prepare for this thing? And I think that really helped. I don't think Doug Wilson prepared at all. I don't know for sure, but uh I don't think he he certainly didn't take it as seriously as I did for I mean for good reason. I mean he he didn't need to. Um so that certainly helped. I think he was a little surprised coming into it and I I think it went pretty well, but I mean go watch it, see for yourself. I'm sure the audience here will be on my side, so they'll be biased to start with, but it was it was a great experience just because yeah, before you go into a debate, I wanted to make sure I had like every possible um objection and argument that he would bring out well thought through. And even at the beginning of the debate, I tried to lay out what I thought his arguments would be in response to kind of cut the cut the wind out of his sails from the start. Um but yeah, it was there were some points where it was challenging, but I I really enjoyed it and it was a great great great exercise to to prepare for that. >> [laughter] >> I You know, you must have had a fair amount of courage because when I think of Doug Wilson, I think of someone pretty bombastic and kind of aggressive and just I don't know, could put you in your place kind of guy. Um and yeah, I I guess I'm just a little surprised like you you went out there and did that. Like again, was it just you're hearing him teach things that like, "Wow, this is just so far off of what I believe is right. You just have to I don't know what challenge it. I think is the word I'd use. >> Well, it was more my interest in the topic than Doug Wilson in particular. Um I I I tend to not take minority positions unless I've researched the topic really well. And Christian non-violence or Christian non-resistance is a minority theological position, but it's one that I think is very easy to defend. And so I I'd studied it a lot. I was really interested in it. Um and so that was that was more what what brought me into this is yeah I I think it's it's pretty hard to defend just war theory even though it is the majority position in the Christian world and and so when when you have the New Testament on your side and the early church it makes it a little easier to go up against someone like Doug. >> Like was there any kind of interaction with him outside of the debate that people can go online and watch and we'll link it and all of that. It'd be interesting to hear his perception like did you get the sense that he took you seriously and took the position that you hold seriously or was it you guys are so far off your rocker like I'll barely you mentioned it didn't seem like he prepared that much like maybe he wasn't I don't [clears throat] know quite what I'm asking but I think you kind of get the vibe there. >> Yeah no he was actually I mean he is a a pretty aggressive um controversial character for sure um but in in my interaction with him which that was my only interaction with the debate he was very nice very cordial and seemed like he took took the debate seriously so yeah I mean he was I had a very pleasant interaction with him it wasn't there was no name calling or I mean you go on on some of the other debates on the same channel and you see some pretty pretty wild stuff but I mean I as far as far as the the guy and my interaction with him I don't I I don't find his ideas to be very helpful but he seemed like a very cordial individual from my interactions. >> Mhm. [clears throat] So let's let's zoom it out a little bit. From your perspective could because obviously you studied into this quite a bit to prepare for the debate. What would you say the appeal is of of guys like Doug Wilson like they are influential they are getting a lot of attention there are a lot of people you know joining either his church or that world view I guess you could call it. What do you see there that is the appeal about these guys? >> Yeah I think it's interesting to go back man, what is it? 15-20 years to where the the young, restless, and reformed movement started. Um, you know, there were figures like John Piper who sort of helped to galvanize this neo-Calvinistic movement. And I was thinking about this today. I'm not sure that the ideology even is is that important. But when you have a a new movement that's that has a lot of energy, um, that's somehow able to appeal to a lot of young people and give them something to live for, you do need a certain ideology for them to kind of attach to and and it's sort of their tribal identity. And I think that might be part of what happened with with neo-Calvinism. You know, it could could have been new Anabaptism perhaps just as as easily, but it happened to be, um, yeah, some of these ideas around Calvinism, um, combined with just a a lot of passion, especially like some of these other figures like Piper who in my my perspective are a lot less problematic. They have a lot of passion for the Great Commission, um, for a life of discipleship. You know, folks like David Platt, Matt Chandler. I mean, I listen to a lot of their sermons and I've I've benefited a lot from them. And so I I think there's something to, um, when the movement started, you know, a group of people who really do take their faith seriously that it that it attracted a lot of people. Now, Doug Wilson is a bit different. Um, I do think he he he's obviously reformed as well, rubbed shoulders with with the likes of Piper, but he's he's taken it to a bit more of a a radical, um, sort of fringe ideology and it's more political, more controversial, um, really a kind of an aggressive communication style. Um, and so yeah, I I think for folks, you know, coming from a conservative Anabaptist world, there is a a fair amount of I mean, in certain settings, there you know, certainty is is um, really highly esteemed. Like, we are sure that our theology is correct. Um, and so I think it it's easy for people to come out of that and to go somewhere like the reform movement because that's also very much how that world works. Like, we're right. We've we've figured out the right theology. Everyone else is wrong. And so, you know, it could be Yeah, folks looking out um, at at the reform movement and finding the arguments compelling. Um, seeing, "Hey, this is another kind of fringe movement that I can be you know, when you're kind of prime for for tribalism in that way, you might find that attractive." I don't know. Those are some of my theories, but yeah. >> That seems to ring true. Like, or at least the the words you're using to describe it is like how I would perceive it. Like, from the outside looking in. Like, yeah, that theological certainty. Like, okay, here's here's the package. Like, this is what we have figured out. Um, I can I can imagine that feeling really nice to people because in a world of a lot of uncertainty, I mean, you know, it can it could feel comforting, stabilizing, perhaps. Um, as as you look at that package, though, where are the points where you see it going astray or being um, uh, incorrect or perhaps even I don't know if the word dangerous is right, but you know, like, that that idea where this isn't taking us in a direction that you don't think that people should go. Um, and maybe use more big picture language cuz I know if we get into the minutiae, I mean, there's tons of little pieces we could pull apart and and um, and look at. Big picture wise, though how would you answer that question? >> [snorts] >> Yeah, with with Doug Wilson in particular it's interesting because he he actually views the from my perspective views the kingdom of God as a really important theme something that we need to establish on earth so there's actually some common ground there with Anabaptism and I think this is where non-violence is [clears throat] so important because you know we would agree that we want to see the kingdom of God on earth but we would reject the use of the sword. So it's sort of like Doug is trying to set up his his little kingdom there in Moscow, Idaho and take on culture with his with his worldview but where we would primarily differ is that we would not you know see the sword as the the way to accomplish that. There's a lot of other things as well you know he has some quite problematic views about slavery about women he's yeah he he tends to be pretty far right in kind of his cultural takes. Yeah and then and then Calvinism of of course is is really central to to what he teaches and so I I honestly I think this is for folks coming from the Anabaptist world and and joining reformed churches I you know in the Anabaptist world we don't have a lot of of teaching on Calvinism. I I remember being at my class at SMBI in in the Romans class our teacher basically skipped what is it chapters 10 and 11? See I don't even know. Um >> Romans 10 and 9 too. Romans 9 would be a big one yeah. >> Yeah I mean >> No kidding. >> skipped over those chapters yeah and and he's he would spend days on on the first few chapters. So there's not a lot of of teaching on this topic and biblically but also philosophically challenging how problematic Calvinism is. So, if you've kind of had, you know, your teachers or your your ministers sort of glazing over these these passages and then someone comes along and is like, "I I take the Bible, you know, at face value. This is what God is saying. God is sovereign. It doesn't matter what you think." You know, that can feel like maybe refreshing for someone who who does want to take the Bible seriously. >> That's an insight there. I've not thought of that. I wasn't in that Romans class, but I was at SMBI at the time. And I mean, you guys spent the whole term on it. So, I just assumed until this very moment you probably spent, you know, multiple days on Calvinism. I mean, that's where it comes from in a lot of ways. There's some other places, too. But that also explains something because we did two interviews with David Bercot based on his Romans commentary, which is not a Calvinist take, obviously. And he did one on Romans 9 and Calvinism and then one more on Romans in general. And both of those just exploded online. And I wonder if that's because that was a lot of new material for our people, our listeners at least. Like I I'm I'm speculating, obviously. You never know why people choose to listen to something. Um but now that I think about it, it's really a topic. I'm trying to think if I've really heard a lot of sermons or teaching. I mean, You might Yeah, anyways, that that struck a chord. I I had not thought of that before. Um which when you debated him, that what you were focusing on the justification thing. You did not get into some of these other things that you're mentioning, the Calvinism and his on slavery and Yeah. >> No, I mean, I could have I could have gotten into that, his all the controversial stuff. It just didn't seem useful in that setting. So, we just stuck to non-violence. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I mean, there's plenty online. You Google Doug Wilson, you'll see all the controversies. >> So, what would you say to someone who is maybe starting to get into this stuff for the first time? They're they're finding Doug Wilson they're "Oh, maybe this guy's got something. Yeah, oh, this Calvinist thing. Oh, this. Oh, this." You know, they're starting to be intrigued, you know, look into it more. What would you say to someone like that? What is the right way forward? I mean, we don't want to put our heads in the sand. You mean, this guy exists. You know, these teachings exist. >> Mhm. >> What do we do now? >> Yeah. So, if if it's Calvinism specifically, I would just say, uh read books on both sides of the argument. There are plenty of very good theologically dense books from an Arminian perspective. Uh books like against Calvinism and others. Um so, yeah, I mean, it's certainly something we shouldn't run away from. Um but yeah, listen to both sides, research both sides carefully. Um from a biblical perspective. But then also think about the philosophical ramifications of a Calvinist God who, uh eternally torments people. Um I you From my perspective, the combination of Calvinism and eternal conscious torment creates a divine being who is the most morally reprehensible being that I could philosophically imagine. I mean, if you think about a being who creates humans and most of them, you know, are are given no choice but to be tormented unendingly. I can't think of any any philosophical construction of a less loving God, right? And so, I do think the thinking about it philosophically is important, too. Why would God create us with an understanding of love that does not at all map onto what the Bible teaches about him. That that doesn't doesn't seem plausible. And so, think about it philosophically, also look at look at the relevant scriptures, hear the best arguments from both sides. And then with with more of the cultural things, um you know, I personally I'm not at all attracted to it. So, it's hard for me to say why people would be attracted to like Christian nationalism and some of those really fringe movements. But, you do see a polarization in the United States. And and so, I can say this you know, with some self-reflection. You know, if I go on my Threads feed, I see basically a a a constant stream of of what I believe about the world and current events. And so, someone who might be drawn even a Baptist who might be drawn to Christian nationalism, just be careful because your algorithm is going to feed you what it knows you like and it it's it's designed to pull you further to the extreme. And Doug Wilson is pretty extreme. And so, just just think about what has influenced you. Um how have your views shifted in the past 5 years? Have they become more extreme? And if so, is it because you're really thinking about these things objectively or is it just because the algorithms are designed to turn you into an extremist? Yeah, that's all I would say. >> And Doug Wilson's a good example of that. Where it's just that he's he's really pushing the envelope to the edge. It It seems like to me as a outside looking in, you know. >> I mean, before this interview, I saw something with him on on Facebook where they're having some conference that from the appearance of it, they're uh well, they're talking about the Crusades and I assume he's probably pro-Crusades. I don't know. Don't quote me on that. But, yeah, it's just some really extreme views. I I I think he does identify as a Christian nationalist. So, he he really leans into Yeah, some pretty extreme views on on culture that Hey, I if if you believe that the kingdom of God should be established on the earth and that you the sword is permissible, I could see how you would get there. So, once again, I I think non-violence is key to this um to have a proper understanding of how we establish the kingdom of God on earth. Um but, yeah, it it's I he's pretty out there on his on his cultural and political views, that's for sure. >> How about that though, cuz like as someone who is as out there as he is, he's taken pretty seriously by a lot of people. And and I think that's the essence of why we're trying to do this. Trying to dig into this and trying to understand this stuff. I also want to note too, I think it's really important there's people like yourself, you know, in a small way who say, "Hey, wait a second. Like I don't agree with that. I want to challenge you on that." And I think that's probably good, you know, and healthy. Even I'm sure we're not going to change his mind, you know, on anything, but you are putting out another alternative. You know, when you did that debate, you know, and I think I think that's important that there's things like that. Like as you as you reflect back, are there any points in particular you want to make sure you get on the record on this topic? Cuz it yeah, I mean, the implications are pretty pretty intense. I mean, if you think about how far people want to go with this. >> Yeah, you mean regarding the debate or just the attraction of Doug Wilson in general? >> In general, yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean, like I I said, I it's it's easy to see a a world view that is not at all attractive to us and we think is just reprehensible and just be like, "What is wrong with these people? How in the world could be that they be pulled into that?" And I I I I don't think telling them, "Oh, what you believe is horribly racist or bigoted or whatever." is is going to be that helpful cuz they hear that every day all day and it actually tends to I think um sort of entrench them further. There's a sense of embattlement, especially with like folks like Doug and the people he people who follow him where the when when culture is against you, that actually makes them more certain that they're right cuz oh, we're being persecuted or oh, the culture is this godless culture. You know, CNN comes and interviews them and misrepresents them and whatever. It It tends to make them dig in their heels further. So, I think modeling um a sort of sense of humility and introspection to folks like that to where like I was saying earlier, um I know my views on on some of these topics have become more extreme in the last four or five years. And once again, I I think it's primarily because of the way social media algorithms feed you more outrage, more of what you want to hear. We don't have a a particularly undivisive administration right now. Yeah, I think thinking about like what are ways that maybe I've been pulled in into what's sort of I think what Paul referred to as like the the powers of the world and the way they want to divide people and the way they want people to >> Right. Yeah. >> live towards the fringes and toward extremism. Um and then, you know, if we if we can be humble, if we can be introspective and model that, and then maybe ask them like how did you get to these views? Do you think there's there's some forces that might not have your best interest in mind that are that are at work here? I really think that's all you can do. Um yeah, being really aggressive and arguing and isn't isn't probably going to help a lot. >> That's a good piece to end it with. Is there anything else that you wanted to to put in there? I mean, that I think that encapsulated it quite nicely there. >> Yeah, I I think it's just important to tell a better story, a more beautiful story about the kingdom of God. Um ultimately, that's that's what we want is to put a a beautiful and compelling vision in front of people of what it means to live um as image bearers following Jesus, um participating in his renewing work to bring about new creation. And when you tell a a beautiful story, um I think that's probably the the most compelling way to combat you know, problematic stories. And so that that's yeah, I I think I would go with that. >> Well, Titus, two things. Thanks for debating Doug Wilson and putting that out there. And thanks for coming on today and then and explaining this. This has This has been very helpful. >> Absolutely. Thanks for having me. >> So that was Titus' take on Doug Wilson and again the whole kind of reformed package and what he's seen there. That's the framework that's driving a lot of this. So Jaren, I'd be curious your responses to Titus' points. What what did you think of what he shared here? >> I think he said some very compelling things and I just want to affirm what he said. One thing that I think is worth accentuating is what he said about the call for Christians who are committed to Jesus' teachings on non-violence to work on communicating how beautiful that call is. I think of a quote by Madeleine L'Engle when she said, "We draw people to Christ not by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it." And I would modify that. It doesn't quite apply to people in the reformed tradition. Here's my paraphrase. We draw people to Christ and the beauty of his ways and example not by loudly discrediting what they believe but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it. As I understand it, the work of Doug Wilson and the neo-reformed movement, it's a system of institutions and precise articulate theology that wars against the beauty of Jesus' examples and teaching. And that's a tragedy. And I think it's adherents might expect that we meet it on its own terms. But I think that it might be just as effective to persevere and to strive in demonstrating lives of love and Christ-like sacrifice and joy. So, I think Titus said very well. He spoke very well about the call to emphasize the beauty of Jesus' teaching. >> So, as we try to kind of bring all these pieces together, how how would you do that as we go to the next piece here? Um we've heard from Landon, you know, we've we've evaluated some of the core pieces there. We've heard from Titus. If you were to bring all this together, how would you do it? What would you say? >> I would say it's a big deal. It's a growing movement and one to take seriously. And I think that we ought to take good people like Landon seriously, that it's a robust intellectual tradition. It's not just an aesthetic. And we should give the type of person who's drawn to it for reasons that are doctrinal and exegetical proper credit, dignity, and acknowledgement. I think that's a big thing that I'm taking away from this. I also have a list of questions, if you would like to hear them. >> Mhm. >> And I think that they're the questions that come up in my mind as the things that are worthy of our attention in regard to this matter. >> Mhm. >> I think we need to continue thinking about a compelling vision of masculinity that is modeled after Jesus. Landon was somewhat dismissive of the significance of the role that the Wilson ish Canon press ish vision of masculinity played in the in the ways that people are attracted to that movement. I'm not totally convinced. I think that if we aren't well grounded in a Jesus-like vision of masculinity, we'll be more susceptible to ones that are not healthy. Secondly, this is my second point here and take away questions. What is a clear understanding of the two kingdom concept? Landon brought up that he has a different understanding of the two kingdoms and that that was central to his translation. So, I would say let's keep strengthening our understanding of the kingdoms. Um thirdly, I think it's worth working on a vision for how we can make the world a better place and what that has to do with God's mission in the world. I think that the Anabaptist tradition has a perspective on this that is different from postmillennialism. So, I would suggest that we sharpen the way we talk about it and we can ask what is a bold vision for the way we work with changing the world. How do we act accordingly? And what does the Anabaptist tradition tell us about that? Fourth question is who is Jesus? Related questions are does he cease to be loving? And does he cease to offer an invitation to repentance and relationship with him that lies outside of violence and coercion. Fifth question, who are our role models? Um, for a long while, Bill Gothard was alluring. >> Mhm. >> IBLP, the basic seminar, all that. He was alluring. Thinking Masculinity, seems like for a decade or two, John Eldredge was a prominent voice. He was super fashionable. I don't see him as one actively getting people to leave their churches, but he was promoting a certain type of masculine role model. So, I ask, who are our role models and who are the people who are normalizing the tone in our conversations and our vision of what does it mean to be a good person? What does it mean to be the kind of person God wants his people to be? One thing that I think is another question, it's worth thinking about. It's my sixth question. What is confident Anabaptism? What are we excited about? What are we certain about? Where certainty is sin. One of the things that I can't help but notice with New Reformed Movement, Doug Wilson, etc., is the confidence. Can we have a similar confidence while being rooted in our communities and churches? Or is that just a mismatch? Is that not something we should be looking for? Seventh question, what does belonging mean in Anabaptist churches? Is there a place for belonging in Mennonite churches for those who don't agree with the doctrinal consensus? And follow-up question, what can belonging look like in Mennonite churches for those who don't agree with the doctrinal consensus? >> Mhm. >> Eighth question, this is my last one. It's long list. I'm sorry about that. Is it true that we Anabaptists tend to be theologically sloppy and ill-defined? If so, is this a problem? Is it a feature or is it a bug? Oh, boy. Follow-up question to that. If we want to move in the direction of better defined theology, what would it look like to normalize that in our churches and communities? Oof. I don't know. That was a big list of questions. They were all big. They were pastoral. Maybe dangerous. So, I'm just going to leave them as questions. But again, I welcome charitable feedback to me directly on that or leave your comments or just talk with those around you about it. >> Yeah, I feel like that last question is really at the core of this. Like, is it true that Anabaptists tend to be theologically sloppy and ill-defined? You know, and then is that a problem or is it actually a feature or maybe it's a bug? You know, that I feel like I got to ponder on that for a while. >> And I was just going to say I think that's an important question. I don't think the answer will be simple. And a part of that's because when we're talking about conservative Mennonite churches and what's the norm, I don't know. Is there a norm? There might be. There's also a lot of diversity, so the answer to your question might just depend well, which church are you talking about and where you are at. So, I'm I'm not asking for generalization that isn't fair. It's It's going to be a case-by-case answer, probably. >> At a minimum, it requires a lot of pondering by each of us, you know, to how how how do I think about this? Th- This is a unique thing. I again, I it it has been interesting to watch how Doug Wilson and people like that have become, you know, more mainstream or more um in the public consciousness, I guess you could say and also too us knowing some people that have have went that route. I've never spent a lot of time trying to to get to the bottom of that, like why is that? And I just I'm really glad you you had the idea to do this this episode. You put a lot of time into the research on this too and also want to thank Titus and Landon for their time to give their perspective on this. I'm sure there's many other people that have perspective that could share as well. Hopefully they'll reach out to us. Well, thanks for coming on today and thanks for sharing. >> It's been a pleasure. >> Thanks for listening to this conversation between Jaren and myself about Doug Wilson and reformed theology and a lot of the pieces that go with that conversation. We did a an episode a number of years ago that we think really applies to this. It's called the ideal resistance. We did that with John D. Martin and Kyle Stalvey where they're talking about what they view as Jesus' way of pushing back against evil and it is a different perspective than what we hear from people like Doug Wilson and and others that would teach things like him. So, you can go check that out in the description below and we'll catch you in the next episode. >> [music]