MennoNet.com

joshuabgood wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 12:56 pm

barnhart wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 7:57 am

Praxis+Theodicy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 05, 2025 9:24 pm

I think it's breaking their "will", because their will is sinful (Augustine/Lutheran theology focusing on original sin), and yes, I've heard it compared to breaking in an animal. Not sure if they make that comparison directly or other people have pointed out the similarities...

If you baptized babies to wash out the sin of Adam, I suppose it's consistent to use physical force to drive the sinful will out of young children, maybe even babies. It probably works on some, but my experience tells me not all children will respond well to that sort of thing. Children are very different, what works with one will not work with another. That makes this sort of child rearing teaching so dangerous, when it is isolated from a human community or a culture of experience and elevated to God status. I know a middle aged father with grown children who is grateful for two older ladies in the church family who intervened when he was young and idealistic and to warn him of his harshness after being influenced by this type of teaching. Interestingly they were both from more communal cultures where raising children is also the business of friends and family.

I was given that book also...and unfortunately bought in for about 6 months of my son's life. However, thanks largely to my wife and some other influences I left that nonsense. And I think the book is extremely dangerous and has resulted in very abusive environments for children, somemof which died at the hands of folks following his corporal disciplone/abuse regimen. Voddie Baucham goes in the same category and also the Babywise folks in my view.

Doug Wilson as well. I would scream loud and long if someone from my congregation wanted to send their son or daughter to Moscow!

I use Doug Wilson like a warning light on the dash, where ever his name pops up, I know something is wrong.

barnhart wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:59 pm I use Doug Wilson like a warning light on the dash, where ever his name pops up, I know something is wrong.

At the “Kirk” it is one train wreck after another. When we know about this stuff on the east coast, you know it is bad.

barnhart wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:59 pm I use Doug Wilson like a warning light on the dash, where ever his name pops up, I know something is wrong.

Should we start with his attitude towards women? If one of our men said half the things he did, they would be taken aside and given a bit of wise counsel. That would be BEFORE the ministry got involved.

An acquaintance of mine ended up relocating to Doug Wilson's church. It has been good for her family as the social atmosphere / church expectations are that her husband actually hold down a job. He is also very pro-Calvinist and had been using that as an excuse to not really attend church before because no local churches were Calvinist enough for him, and, well, the expectations are now that he attend church regularly as Doug Wilson's church is sufficiently Calvinist.

So Doug Wilson and his church aren't all bad, including for women.

Is this the Doug Wilson you are all talking about? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00355376

JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Jul 07, 2025 11:11 pm An acquaintance of mine ended up relocating to Doug Wilson's church. It has been good for her family as the social atmosphere / church expectations are that her husband actually hold down a job. He is also very pro-Calvinist and had been using that as an excuse to not really attend church before because no local churches were Calvinist enough for him, and, well, the expectations are now that he attend church regularly as Doug Wilson's church is sufficiently Calvinist.

That's a second warning light on the dash.

One of my former students debated Wilson on Just War. Wilson believes that most of the wars the US has fought were not just. But in his mind, he knows clearly which ones were and which ones weren't throughout history. That takes a lot of self-confidence. (p.s. My friend does not identify as pacifist that I am aware of.)

Ken wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 12:00 am Is this the Doug Wilson you are all talking about? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00355376

Thanks for posting this Ken. It's the best overview of Wilson and the Moscow experiment I've seen so far. I've read many others that seem to try to inflate some (very serious) scandals within the movement, but this one lays out the facts in a way even Wilson would agree with... and it seems to leave it up to the reader to interpret those facts as positive or negative.

I've been watching Wilson since his blogs started being shared among people in my evangelical baptist church in 2020. Back then his writings let off the loudest alarm bells in my head and I couldn't put my finger on why. His blog writing is a different tone from his sermonizing. His blogs constantly make use of conspiratorial language. For example, every post is punctuated by the use of unidentified "they/them" pronouns. "They do not wat you to worship God." "They exist as a dark cabal behind the scenes, steering the culture wars to eliminate conservatives." "They want to replace white people with minorities." "They want to kidnap our kids and turn them into transgender jewish woke clowns." That sort of thing. He makes broad accusations without identifying facts in a way that can be backed up or actually demonstrated. There is always this vague enemy that is called "they" and he allows his readers to fill in that gap with any boogeyman they want to. It's a way to make war with people while retaining plausible deniability. If someone accuses him of supporting ideas or conspiracies that are wrong or dangerous, he can say he didn't actually do that, he just did some general hand-waving.

I thought in 2020 that Wilson is the most dangerous Christian influencer out there, and each year since, my mind has not been changed. My biggest hope is that, since he is loud enough about his vulgar and pugilistic style, he will not attract anabaptists into his ecosystem. In my opinion, it is too much trouble to spit out the bones just to get at whatever mean there might be in Wilson's rhetoric.

Ernie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:47 am One of my former students debated Wilson on Just War. Wilson believes that most of the wars the US has fought were not just. But in his mind, he knows clearly which ones were and which ones weren't throughout history. That takes a lot of self-confidence. (p.s. My friend does not identify as pacifist that I am aware of.)

I've watched this before, and I really REALLY liked it. It was one of the best debates on violence vs. non-violence that I have seen, including the (still great) one hosted by Sattler College/FOTW. I think it's a shame that the debate is entitled "pacifism vs. just war".