Doug Wilson and Jared Longshore, pastors of Christ Church in Moscow, ID., traveled to Escondido for a debate with me this past Friday. This will probably make some heads spin, so I feel that a statement is necessary to be read before the Abounding Grace Radio program airs on Tuesday, August 6, 2024, 8:00AM on the many AGR platforms. I humbly ask that you read this statement before listening to the program.
We had a cordial, robust, sometimes intense, 3-hour debate on the issues of Christian Nationalism, Postmillennialism, Federal Vision, Masculinity, et al. Doug and Jared were absolute gentlemen, kind and, on a personal note, I very much enjoyed my time with them.
Watch the debate
Rationale
Many will question whether such a debate should have taken place. Overall, the many debates I have watched with Wilson, have been with people who either agree with him, or with those who rarely challenge the many premises that are made. Further, that the many more combative critiques of Wilson have been confined to blog posts, podcasts, articles, along with some of the most aggressive rhetoric is without question. The internet has become a cesspool of cruel critique. I wanted to look directly into their God-created eyes. I invited both Doug and Jared with me alone to tackle this.
Our current approach of dealing with those with whom we disagree, or maybe of whom we have deemed as false teachers, all on our own, and with a priori knowledge, I believe has not always been honoring to the Lord, or helpful to the cause of truth. Some will adamantly disagree. That’s fine. I bind no man’s conscience on this issue, but I also ask that you do not bind mine. I believe that if someone has the courage to write or do a podcast critiquing someone else’s views (which I have done), if that person is willing to address the issues with us, then we should be willing to engage them. What do we have to fear in speaking to them? Not all will agree, again, that’s fine.
More importantly, my rationale for this debate is driven by a deep care and interest in these issues with the goal of helping people to know God’s truth. I care deeply for the sheep who are confused at the moment on these issues. I want clarity for them. This is why I did this. Further, this stretched me in ways that were beyond what I expected, and I do not mind being challenged on my own views, which I will readily admit are not perfect.
Some will say: “why would you ever give a platform to someone who does not get the gospel right?” Let’s assume that I considered someone to be a gross enemy of the gospel, does my judgment remove the solemn command of our Lord to love even my enemies? This needs to be pondered. It may be that much of our Lord’s displeasure displayed at the moment has more to do with how Christians treat dignitaries, those in authority, and one another, than we realize. We addressed this very point.
Assuming the premise above, if I believe that someone is a false teacher, do I not want to see them saved and delivered, as I was? What of the greatest idolator, or blasphemer, the Romans 1 sinner, along with the Romans 2 sinner? This is about the gospel for the greatest of sinners, right? I do care about Doug Wilson, and I hope I showed that.
For my position, I believe Wilson has been unclear on many issues, said things that are very, very concerning about justification. That is a big deal. It’s addressed. The listener will have to decide. Yet, there are solemn commands from our Lord in how to deal with people of whom we may feel this way. Paul approached things this way: “He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsel of the hearts (1 Cor. 4:4-8).” Yes, there are church courts. But if our courts refused to name Wilson, as he protested in the discussion, then I will follow this principle. There may be a variety of other moral issues that some feel should be addressed, but my approach was to deal with the theological problems with his writings and the consequences that flowed from them. Here I stood.
An Earnest Plea
Please listen to the entirety of the 3-hour podcast before speaking out or condemning. We did this for you, so please, at a minimum, make the effort to listen to the whole thing. You owe that to us if you are going to critique. When one is emphasizing one side of things, there can be an assumption that one doesn’t hold to the other side of an issue. The discussion develops and issues are clarified later in the podcast that may not have been earlier.
I addressed all the issues firmly, I believe, without wavering on my convictions, but also with kindness. I’m not looking forward to the play by play that is about to take place on many podcasts. I only ask that those who have these platforms approach this with the same kind of respect that was shown between us in this discussion. I ask for Doug and Jared’s forgiveness that at times my passion got the best of me as I interrupted them, but my goal was to let them speak without dominance. And my passion was a bit overdone in addressing others. At times, I failed. Forgive me.
A Few Qualifications
When addressing Christ and culture issues, there is a complexity here that we often do not accept. Christians have been wrestling with this for thousands of years. It’s part of our struggle of not being at home in this world. My position, especially since I am assumed to be R2k as a minister in Escondido, is that of Kuyperian sphere sovereignty. I think Kuyper was brilliant, and my mentor, Dr. Godfrey has been a positive influence on me in these things.
At one point, there was a discussion about the 1788 revision and mosques. I wasn’t as clear as I would have liked to be. It’s one thing to describe what 17-18th century Presbyterians believed and tried to pursue, but the complexities of our current situation (many of our issues of which they did not anticipate) leave us in a place of thinking through, for our context, the best way forward. Primarily, the state orders horizontally relationships with people. Our current pluralistic context has to be carefully considered, even though we may “want” something else. That’s what makes the conversation complex. But, yes, we should all want the state ordered according to the moral law of God. That is not in question, at least for me. How we accomplish this is complex in our context.
Also, I wish I had developed more of a positive vision of what Christians should be doing in society. This can be done elsewhere. One fact check: I said that 1 Corinthians 15:25 was inscribed on the high altar of Westminster Abbey. It’s actually Revelation 11:15. That was a bonehead mistake in the moment.
Finally, I hope that we exhibited, in love and with a good example for others, how Christians should treat one another with whom we disagree. Please treat Doug, Jared, and me with the same respect we attempted to show each other.
Blessings in Christ,
Christopher J Gordon, Escondido, CA
Abounding Grace Radio