I typically have a pretty full schedule every week, but it has been notably fuller since our Session responded to recent allegations that I am “a FV problem in the OPC” on January 10th. Many have reached out to express concern and support for me; others have reached out to express concern about me. There have been many good conversations—by phone, email, text message, and in person. I have answered a lot of questions. In fact, I don’t think there has been even one day since January 10th that I have not spent time communicating with others who contacted me about this issue. It has taken a lot of time, every day, and there are many more of these conversations both already on my calendar and on the horizon.
I am grateful to everyone who has communicated with me thus far. These questions and conversations are a welcome contrast to the original distribution of the packet which was compiled and distributed without anyone contacting me to ask questions about my views or obtain clarification on any point that seemed unclear. Specific questions are helpful and clarifying. General allegations that someone is “Moscow friendly” or seems to be “becoming Federal Vision” are not.
The most common question I have received in the last seven weeks has been, “What’s Federal Vision?” This is due to the fact that the vast majority of members in our congregation do not come from a Reformed church background, and most of those who do have not spent much time on Reformed social media. No doubt, this may explain how they have been so easily misled by a sneaky Federal Visionist.
Inquirers have asked about my view of the covenants—you may notice the plural, covenants, suggesting I am not the mono-covenantalist that some think I may be—as well as my views on justification by faith and baptism. I am happy to answer these questions, though it seems odd to have to do so since I regularly preach sermons in which I explain and defend my views. Moreover, those answers haven’t changed much since I was examined by the Presbytery in 2016. At the risk of sounding boringly orthodox rather than excitingly innovative, my views on these matters are nicely summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But the main question that keeps coming around has nothing to do with my views on biblical and theological topics and instead centers on my admiration for a certain jolly pastor in the land of potatoes.
I have written before of my appreciation for Lord Voldemort. I met Douglas Wilson in 2022. We spoke at the same conference and even answered questions on the same panel. I am sure he is thankful that I was there to draw a crowd for him. In all seriousness, I have no doubt that if someone asked Pastor Wilson about Joel Ellis, he would respond, “Who?” Doug Wilson does not know me, but I have been immeasurably blessed by his ministry for many years, and I am unapologetic in my appreciation for him.
The primary grievance that comes up, again and again, in the conversations I’ve had over the last seven weeks has been my unwillingness to admit that Douglas Wilson is a no-good, horrible, very-bad man. It does not seem to occur to any of my questioners or critics that their eagerness for me to concede this point only makes me less willing to do so. I might have been willing to take issue with Pastor Wilson on one or two points, but I’m less inclined to cooperate when disgruntled neighbors suggest it would be good for my health to do so. J. C. Ryle once said, “The best of men are men at best,” and I am sure this applies to Doug Wilson whose cowboy boots contain feet of clay. But alas, if we are to withhold appreciation and instead denounce those whose theology we consider to be flawed, I might have a word or ten to say about some of my critics. Instead, I will simply say that I thank God for them. Insofar as they are heralds of the gospel, I rejoice that Christ is preached. Insofar as they are thorns, I rejoice that God uses them as goads to my sanctification.
Those who claim that I promote Pastor Wilson cite the fact that I once recommended the Canon+ app in a weekly newsletter, wrote a rather favorable appreciation of his work for Kuyperian Commentary, allowed members of ROPC to move to Moscow, ID, and fail to clutch my pearls when confronted with excerpts from Wilson’s novel Ride, Sally, Ride. Concerning the latter, my family can attest to the fact that I and my wife and several of my children thoroughly enjoyed it. We have given copies away as a gift and recommended it to others. If this amounts to promoting Doug Wilson, I must say that my transgression in this regard pales in comparison to my enthusiastic appreciation for the works of G. K. Chesterton (an obese papist), Robert Heinlein (a pagan libertarian), and C. S. Lewis (an Anglican whom no self-respecting confessional Presbyterian would ever read). If the fact that we allowed members to move to Moscow without placing them under discipline is evidence that my orthodoxy is in doubt, I wonder what we are to think of OPC pastors who have seen members depart for Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, and various forms of progressivism. I had no idea that pastors had the power to tell members where they are allowed to move. My authority is much greater than I knew.
I have been told that my admission that I could affirm the content of the “Joint Statement on Federal Vision” is my “death warrant” in the OPC. Who knew that such an innocuous statement could justify such a violent outcome? Some seem to believe this confession obviates the need for specific charges against me, a type of Presbyterian seppuku, albeit less messy. But if that admission constitutes a confession of error, then those specific errors must be substantiated. I deny that I teach anything contrary to the Confession I vowed to uphold. I am open to correction, but first I must be convinced of fault from Scripture.
The current state of controversy is a proxy war, with rumors and gossip operating behind the scenes in an attempt to destabilize ROPC—which continues to grow and flourish, by God’s grace—and questions being suggested by men in shadows to those who are willing to communicate with me but who do not know the right questions to ask. The accusations are non-falsifiable. An assertion of categorical error is made without specifics or substantiation. It is like the man who was asked if he still beats his wife. He cannot say yes or no without indicting himself, and if he claims he has never beaten his wife, we’re pretty sure that is just what a wife-beater would say. I can simply assert that you are a Federal Visionist, and don’t ask me what that means or where specifically you have erred. That’s just what a Federal Visionist would say. –JME
