All Are Yours Includes “The Doug”

Philip All right, we’re back at it. I don’t know what episode this is, but I think we’re going to stop counting.

Sean Well, I think this must be five, because we counted the one where our friend interviewed us.

Philip So this is not our fifth recording, but the audience was not — yeah, we were not missed by the audience.

Sean Since the last time you and I talked like this, I have had back surgery and kind of a cancer-removing procedure. So I kept blowing us off for weeks at a time.

Philip Just little excuses that were not even a big deal. But you did say that this is the best you’ve felt in the last like fourteen months.

Sean Absolutely true.

Philip And we started recording the first episode within that time, which means that this is the best you’ve felt on any recording that we’ve had.

Sean No excuses for reluctance anymore.

Philip That’s right. So, only energy and joy, and we love being here.

Sean Boom.

Philip That’s right.

And, speaking of joy and energy, we did want to talk a little bit about some of our influence into that world of joy and delight and good energy. What has been termed by some as the Moscow mood, and Doug Wilson and Wilsonianism. And so we kind of wanted to speak a little bit about that relationship — at least a theological or worldview relationship — that we might share, being dispensationalists, with postmillennial paedobaptist covenantalists like Doug Wilson and his clan.

Sean Yeah.

Philip And how all that works together.

Sean How did you find out about Wilson?

Philip Yeah. It was maybe like ’07, 2007, 2008. I was not meeting with Dave Light, but my brother and a few of my buddies were. And so Dave pointed them onto Future Men — it was a group of young guys, pointed them onto Future Men.

Sean That’s a good one.

Philip Oh yeah. And then they brought that to me. And so that’s how then I remember getting Future Men and reading it at that time. And then started looking into Doug Wilson, learned about classical education, and so that really intrigued me.

And I didn’t even understand what I didn’t understand regarding the disagreements or not. But I liked the stuff he was putting out, and so that was kind of my entryway into Wilsonianism.

Sean Yeah. And so, as you — because obviously there’s a lot of gravity there. There’s a lot that is really attractive, desirable. And so, even in terms of the things that you didn’t know that you didn’t know, you then were tempted — I don’t mean that like it’s a sin in any way — but you were wondering if capital C Covenantalism was the secret sauce. And they don’t say it’s secret. They say that it is the sauce.

Philip Right, yeah. They want you to know the ingredient.

Sean Yeah. So you were in, listening to them.

Philip Yeah. I think it was stronger than tempted. I know you’ve poked at me before, where I was fornicating with covenant theology.

Sean I mean, that’s inflammatory.

Philip Sure.

Yeah, so, in not knowing what I didn’t know, I had to learn a lot of that. And so, yes, I was swallowing a lot of the ingredients that they were saying was a part of this tasty meal. So I liked what the meal tasted like. Okay, this is what they’re saying, this is what the chef is saying the ingredients are.

Sean Yeah.

Philip So let’s take all these ingredients if we want to cook more food like this. So, yes, for sure, that was a path I was on and going toward.

Sean And a couple things that, I guess, are tensions, or held in juxtaposition, is that we actually — like, you and I personally, I know this is true, and then even as our church and school — we don’t actually, now that a bunch of us have realized what the ingredients really are, or what they say that they are in preparation of the meal, so to speak, a bunch of us do not actually want to cook our food like that, while also still enjoying a bunch of the food that they make.

And I know I have at least gotten one explicit question on, why do you like them so much and haven’t become covenantal, capital C Covenantal, Presbyterian, paedobaptist? Why haven’t you moved this direction if you like so much of what they’re saying? I think that that’s a fine question. That’s part of what we’re doing here.

But, even for as many things as we have not swallowed, or that some may have swallowed and spit back out, we still would recommend Grace Agenda. Go see the people in Moscow, go hang out. We have a variety of students going to New Saint Andrews, which we are excited about.

Philip Right.

Sean Not discouraging them from thinking about that at all.

Whereas we do not any longer really encourage people to go to Shepherds’ Conference, or The Master’s University where MacArthur is. We don’t really encourage people to think about going to Minneapolis where Piper is. We don’t really encourage people to go to Southern, in Louisville, where Mohler is. Even though on paper, or in the books, we actually have a lot more overlap in a bunch of doctrine, probably, with like MacArthur, and to some extent Piper and Mohler and some of those names like that.

So, they stopped having the Together for the Gospel conference, but TEC sent guys to Together for the Gospel, maybe two or three conferences back, in Louisville, and it was fine. But actually, I think the more that I went, at least, the less I loved hanging out with the guys. And I wasn’t actually super encouraged by the content of the messages.

And I don’t think I have been to Moscow, to a conference or to something, and not been encouraged by what they have to say. While still not being a baby baptizer, and still not being postmillennial, and still not actually thinking that capital C Covenant theology is the best way to summarize what’s in Scripture.

Philip Well, and that’s, I think, maybe the biggest shocker. Because there are Baptists within the CREC. There are premillennialists — like historic premillennialists — who still hold to a certain type of covenant theology. But being dispensationalists, I think that is the big, like, what in the world?

And there’s been, seems like in the last couple of years, maybe even the last year, there’s been way more talk and analysis about Moscow and Doug Wilson and all of that. Both pros and cons.

Sean Actually, within the last six months there’s been a lot of talk about Doug Wilson, and Israel. Not necessarily together, but actually even in the last month, a bunch together.

Philip Yes. We like that part.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But so, a lot of the critical analysis — which, some of it is crude, some of it is trying to be respectful. So even, like, Kevin DeYoung’s “The Moscow Mood,” and all of that, and there’s a lot of other things.

A lot of that kind of critical analysis — we don’t even really agree with the criticism part of it. Like, we hear what they’re saying, and we see why these other people maybe are not fully excited about what Wilson is doing. And we disagree with them not being excited about it. But then we’re disagreeing with them, and we’re kind of over here quietly cheering on Wilson and Moscow and everything they’re doing — while being dispensationalists.

While — which, for both dispies and covies, that framework is fundamental. Like, that frames everything else in your life. So how in the world are we dispensationalists and still excited about Wilson and Moscow and their entire project? And, like, we want to see them succeed in their project. We don’t see it as a bad thing at all.

And so holding that kind of tension, I think, is unique. There aren’t too many dispensationalist camps who, like you said, on paper have more in common with John MacArthur and, you know, the G3 guys to an extent, Master’s Seminary, that whole group — and are also excited about that Moscow project.

Sean Yeah. I don’t think that I have written or said anywhere in a public format — so this will be as public as my comment has gotten so far — but I think that if I were to consider my theological house, or the theological room that I live in, I would say that God used John MacArthur in my life to build two of the walls. And actually both of the walls are named the same thing, which are Bible and Bible.

What I got, in God’s use of John MacArthur in my life, was that the Bible is the authority, the Bible is sufficient, the Bible has the answers, the Bible is God’s power — the word is God’s power to bring about what he wants. And that conviction, and then obviously his example of continuing to go to the Bible. And whether or not I agree with every exegetical conclusion that he makes, the bigger point I got out of his life is: go to the Bible, let the Bible drive your pastoral — obviously preaching, but even your decisions, as much as possible.

And that was big for me. Because growing up, and even when I thought God was giving me the desire to be a pastor, I didn’t have any doctrine, I didn’t have any theology. The first time I had that desire was the summer before my senior year of high school, and I didn’t even know John MacArthur’s name. So these were all developments that came after I decided I thought I wanted to be a pastor.

And so God used MacArthur. I started by reading books by him, and then even went out to The Master’s Seminary, and I was not disappointed by the seminary at all. They continued to drive, at that point, drive into me that the Bible is the ultimate authority. Keep reading the Bible, preaching the Bible, try to live out the Bible.

The third wall of my theological house, I would say God used John Piper to help with — and as Piper was pointing back to Edwards — in saying that when you read the Bible and understand the truth, and that obviously is MacArthur’s deal, is unleashing God’s truth one verse at a time. He wants to be known as the truth guy. Well, that’s good.

But I came out of The Master’s Seminary even leaving it at much more of the knowledge-in-the-head part. And God used Piper to point out that the truth is actually supposed to drive affections. And that God is glorified not just by our knowing, but by our delighting in him.

And I really hadn’t been. It made a lot of sense then, when I put together that the great commandment is to love the Lord your God, not to say true things about him. We ought to say true things, but the truth enables the love.

And I had been wrong. I had been not even half-hearted — I might have been no-hearted, or little-hearted, and it was a lot of love of the truth.

So that third wall was really crucial, and really did change my — it changed my Christian life, it changed my pastoral life, it changed my husbanding life, it changed my life as a dad. Where I realized what God wanted with us was for our love, and, again, our affections.

But then it still seemed like something was thin, and —

Philip The cold wind was still coming in with only three walls.

Sean Yeah.

And the fourth wall has been both the wall that needs the other ones, but that has brought significant blessing — and was probably even more painful to repent of, realizing that I didn’t have the wall. And that was realizing that God cares about our lives in our bodies. And he cares about more than just Sunday morning worship, and he cares more than just about our thirty minutes of quiet time alone by ourselves. That God himself delights in a bunch of things that he made and calls good, and wants us to receive them, thank him, use them, invest them, grow with them.

And that pokes at any number of ways that you want to describe it. So you could call it dualism, where the spiritual things matter but the earthly things don’t. You could call it Gnosticism, so it’s on a secret knowledge, and actually then anything material or fleshly is in and of itself wicked, so get away from that. You could call it pietistic — much more the, it’s inside of me, and then I get to go to heaven, rather than there’s anything for me to do here.

Obviously the premillennial dispensationalists who — the caricature of building a bunker, just trying to wait it out until the rapture happens, because the world is going to hell in a handbasket and we’re afraid of it and it’s going to mess us up, as opposed to seeing anything good in it. These are all different ways, or words, to describe the mindset I had.

So I was like that. I thought the spiritual things mattered, and at best the earthly things — including family, food, feasting, wine. Wine actually kind of ends up being a token example of this: so, grape juice in communion is what you have, because you don’t want to get drunk like the world would get drunk with wine.

All that to say — around the time that I was studying Genesis 1, and that my wife and I were talking about how to educate our oldest daughter, who at the time was like three or four years old, so we were right on the cusp of needing to start her in some sort of schooling.

I had known about Doug Wilson through Credenda/Agenda, but I hadn’t read any of his books and didn’t really listen to much online or whatever. But my wife gave me a couple of his books on classical education. And while initially I was really resistant, and I wrote bad things about him in the margins of some of those books — no way, come on, Doug, this is wrong, whatever. Like, I still have those books.

Philip Have you shown him this?

Sean I have not asked him to sign my copy of —

Philip You should totally.

Sean Yeah, my marginalia criticisms of him.

But, again, God was bringing me to repent of my dualism. And used Wilson’s joyful obedience in the flesh — with his family, with grandkids, with schooling, with the glories of bread and butter and wine and feasting — that these are even expressions of how the truth, as we love God and love each other, then actually gets enfleshed.

Philip Right.

Sean Gets embodied.

And I would totally say that God used then Wilson to build that fourth wall in my house. While I still have not accepted into my heart baptizing babies.

Philip Right.

Well, and there are a lot of — once you start reading about the all-encompassing lordship of Christ and Kuyperian theology, or Kuyperianist theology, you come across a lot of different people who believe that and confess that and are trying to live that. So that kind of not-dualistic, not-Gnostic — like, we should be fleshing out the worship of Christ in all of life.

Sean Because the Bible says so.

Philip Right.

Sean It’s not like we got the gospel message from the Bible, and then Doug Wilson made up all this other stuff about how we can live it out.

Philip Right.

Sean Or Kuyper. The whole point is, in the trajectory of reading the Bible — oh, look at that.

Philip Right.

Sean Obedience in my body is right there in the verse, as well as love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. Or even, how does that love look? Oh, well, that’s in the Bible too. The Bible is not actually just saying wait for heaven.

Philip That’s right.

Well, and so — there are a lot of people. I mean, there’s a lot more people who aren’t doing that, but there are a lot of people who are talking about that and trying to live that out.

What I do think is maybe not unique, but more unusual, about specifically Wilson and his whole approach — some of it, I think, is attributed to maybe his personality, or his demeanor, his overall, just the kind of person he is.

Sean His jolly.

Philip His jolly, right.

But part of it, I think, is maybe a little bit deeper of an understanding, or a different kind of approach, to the lordship of Christ. Where — your view, what you were talking about regarding truth and truth and truth — people have that same approach, maybe, to the lordship of Christ that is all-encompassing, and Kuyperianism: but this is true, and so we have to hold on to it.

Where Wilson seems like he is enjoying the lordship of Christ. He loves living under the lordship of Christ. He delights in that. And his entire approach is an approach of faith and delight, and not this kind of anti — freak out that everybody needs to swallow what I’m selling, or everybody needs to agree with me. He is loving where he’s at.

And I think that is a big part, a big component, of what makes him and his entire project attractive. So it’s like the kid who nobody invited him to play, so he’s just having a great time playing by himself, and other people take note of that. Why is that kid having so much fun? I want to go do what he’s doing.

And so I think that that is a part of specifically this kind of Wilsonian approach: that he’s not just living under the lordship of Christ, but he’s loving it.

Sean Yeah. And this has been, at least I think, true for you as well — definitely true for me in my journey of learning here — but it turns out that not all Presbyterians are actually enjoying it.

Philip Right.

Sean That not all covenantalists are actually living by faith, in their own life, or even then as it applies to raising their kids.

Philip Right.

Sean So, I guess I didn’t have lots of exposure. I grew up Baptist-y, went to Baptist-y colleges, The Master’s Seminary. And Grace Community Church — our lowercase would be baptist; I mean, they’re definitely credobaptist and dispensational, mostly.

So I didn’t go to Presbyterian churches. I read reformers, who were obviously some of the guys that helped start it. But Wilson became kind of a doorway into more of that world.

And I guess initially I thought, oh, well — and the way Wilson answers the questions, why are you the way that you are?

Philip Right.

Sean And he doesn’t just give one thing; it’s not like he doesn’t have a multitude of things in the arsenal to explain it. But he does regularly connect his life and worldview to postmillennialism in particular. That his jolliness and his optimism are coming from thinking that we are going to eventually win here, and then Jesus comes back.

Philip Right.

Sean He explains that part of his happiness is due to that part of his theology. And the covenantalism, as he would connect it with postmillennialism, or even then generations and grandkids and great-grandkids and so forth. And when he explains it based on that — at least at first I thought, oh, is that — oh, well, that does sound good.

Philip I mean, that’s what happened to me.

Sean And then started seeing more people who also claimed the Presbyterian, paedobaptist, covenantal, postmillennialism. And they weren’t jolly.

Philip Right.

Sean And they were actually just a brand new kind of fussy about not meeting the Westminster Confession. That a Grace Community Church kind of dude — like a Master’s — because Master’s Seminary grads are known for splitting churches, and they’re usually because they’re —

Philip That’s ironic.

Sean Yeah. Because of their dogmatism on doctrine, and everybody else is a heretic — but it’s based on the Bible. Presbyterians, turns out, just do it not about the Bible. They just use some Westminster thing and police each other about it.

Philip Right. Yeah, that is exactly my journey. Like I said, where Wilson explains the ingredients of this meal that we like. We eat the meal, we keep coming back to eat the meal, it’s great. We want more of that food.

And so he attributes the ingredients: postmillennialism, covenantalism, and then specifically even paedobaptist covenantalism, as opposed to not that.

And so, yeah, that was, okay, I need to learn if I want to reproduce this. I need to learn about postmillennialism and covenantalism. So I started to read postmillennialism and covenantalism before, or outside of, Wilson. So, all that entire camp.

And there were other reasons, but a big reason was me reading those guys that made me realize: this does not lead to what Wilson is doing. This is way different. It’s not in that way.

And, yeah, I did think that the dispy Bible thumpers were the fussy ones.

Sean Yeah.

Philip There is an equal amount, if not even more, of — like what you’re saying — fussiness, and an unpleasant taste that I want nothing to do with, being that kind of person, coming out of covenant theology, historically and currently.

Sean Yeah.

Philip And so —

Sean Which is, on one hand, disappointing. Well, it’s not just disappointing; it’s actually wrong.

So it’s wrong for both the dispy Bible thumper, red-faced, yelling, screaming Baptist preacher. It’s wrong for the three-piece-suit Westminster dude.

Philip Right.

Sean That part is just wrong, no matter who is doing it.

And I have found it interesting — I’m not mad at the other Presbyterians. I was surprised, and in some ways then more thankful for Wilson, and especially his family, a bunch of the other people in their institutions there. I think I’m able to easily be edified by them, for sure. But especially Doug and Nancy, his kids and their spouses and grandkids, to the degree that I hear stories about them or things like that — easy to be edified by their lives.

And it seems to be much more related to God blessing them living by faith than it is explicitly when, if and when, he would say and try to connect that to Westminster, or to, like we’ve been saying, the other kind of theologies.

Philip Yeah. And he would disagree with that, to an extent. I think that —

Sean He would disagree with our disagreement.

Philip Right. Yeah.

I mean, he’s nice in that sense, where he’s not going to get offended, maybe, in that way. But I think us trying to take away the postmillennial foundation, or the covenantal foundation, to what they’re doing — he would disagree with that. Where, no, this is actually an important piece of why we are the way we are, what we’re doing.

And that’s great. And so I —

Sean He can be wrong, if he wants to.

Philip Yeah. And also I think we need to have a certain level of respect to people who have thought through their positions and have landed where they’ve landed, and not just dismiss them as not thinking clearly.

So it’s like, we’ve landed on certain positions as well, and we would like people who disagree with us to at least give us the level of, I don’t know, respect to not assume that we’re doing this naively, right? Or that we haven’t actually thought through this.

And so even when we’re disagreeing with somebody — specifically even somebody like Wilson, who makes it very pleasant to disagree with him. Like, he’s laughing the whole time. He’s not fussy at all. But I want to respect that he’s landing on these positions and he believes that this is the ingredient.

And, sure, I could leave room for me being wrong, us being wrong. But also, we have to make a judgment, and we have to point things out as we see them. And I think that there’s other ingredients coming into what is happening in Moscow, apart from postmillennialism, covenantalism, that is making it the way it is.

Sean Yeah. The amount of fruit coming out of his orchard demands respect — you used the word respect — gratitude to God for —

Philip Yeah, it is not difficult to be grateful for what they’re doing.

Sean Yeah. So much fruit. And as that fruit is observed — and it’s good fruit, tasty fruit —

Philip Right.

Sean As that fruit is observed, considering, like you’re saying — well, obviously God is the one who gives fruit. Man sows and waters and weeds and waits, and God has to give growth. But were there things that God was blessing in giving that growth? And in what ways can we, ought we to, imitate that, learn from that, be thankful for it, and practice it ourselves?

Philip Right.

Sean And as you listen to Farmer Wilson — it turns out that not everybody is getting the same blessed fruit using the methods he’s claiming that he’s using.

Philip Right.

Sean And so I also am not trying to — like, I don’t want to change his mind.

Philip Right.

Sean I am not complaining about what he is doing.

I have the same sort of perspective on MacArthur. I wouldn’t be where I am today apart from God’s use of MacArthur in my life — you know, two walls, go to the Bible, go to the Bible. So absolutely am thankful.

And also, as I have learned from him — in fact, what drove me to move across the country from Ohio and go to The Master’s Seminary was kind of a haunting from, I think it’s Luke 6:40, that says every disciple, when he is fully learned, will be just like his teacher. And I wanted to be like John MacArthur.

And as I then got to seminary and was part of the church, and watched more closely at least, I actually realized that I wouldn’t say that John MacArthur is a pastor like most guys should be pastors.

And two things: I don’t want him to stop what he’s doing. But, secondly, I would think it would be beneficial for him to clarify to all of the other guys that are being trained as pastors that this isn’t what it’s going to look like for everybody. So I don’t want him to stop what he’s doing, but actually some clearer terms might be helpful.

Philip Right.

Sean So, yes. When the MacArthur Study Bible came out, part of the ad copy was, for thirty years, for thirty hours a week, John MacArthur has studied the Bible. Well, excellent, awesome. Love his tape ministry at the time, Grace to You, radio broadcasts, all of the books, all of those things, the commentaries, conferences, the connection then with the seminary and the college — all of that is great.

That is not what makes a pastor. So, is he teaching? Yes. Has that been greatly blessed? Yes.

And he visits people in the hospital. He totally cares about people. He has done his own counseling in his office, those kinds of things. So it’s not like he’s doing none of that. But his role is different than what my —

Philip Mm-hmm.

Sean — like, my role as a pastor is. My week does not look the same. And I just think it might be beneficial to be able to clarify that. I’m not trying to get him to change his mind or stop what he’s doing. But also, to give clarity to other people might be helpful.

I think a similar thing in Wilson’s case. I’m not trying to get him to change; I’m not being critical of it. I just think, as then we learn what we’re supposed to do, some distinctions are actually helpful. And I’m not convinced that the way he always describes it is the right description.

Philip Right. Well, and you do — I think there’s been a phrase called like Wilson Warriors, or something like that.

Sean Okay.

Philip I read an article about that. But, so, like, Wilson followers, who are trying to follow in his footsteps, and who are trying to imitate what he’s doing.

And, yeah, there are different types of followers. There are different — people understand, misunderstand, misconstrue. They adopt parts of it, they don’t adopt other parts. Like, we’re part of that too. So I would consider TEC, and you and myself, as a Wilson follower, to that type.

Sean You’re saying we’re beneficiaries, not members of Wilson Warriors.

Philip That’s right. We’re beneficiaries of whatever they’re doing.

And so, yeah, we don’t agree with everything. But, similar to what you’re saying, where for a lot of MacArthur followers who are then trying to lead their own churches, they’re being set up for frustration, to an extent. Where, okay, I thought that’s what I was doing, and this is actually causing problems for me at home, with my church, because I’m trying to devote thirty hours a week, for thirty years, of Bible study and writing and whatever.

Sean And being mad if the people don’t give that to them.

Philip Right. “Don’t you understand this is my calling from God?”

And in a similar way, covenant theology or postmillennialism, that is just trying to use the Moscow project, if you call it that, as a formula to then duplicate. If those are their formula pieces, it seems like that’s not just not sufficient, but — in my understanding, and this with all due respect, in my understanding — it is inconsistent with the kind of results that people like from Wilson.

And so, coming to a covenantal hermeneutic, a covenantal approach to reading the Bible, interpreting the Bible — and Wilson is also, I think, a guy who I’ve heard him say, I’ve read him say, things like, take the Bible at face value.

Sean Yeah.

Philip Right. So, like —

Sean And he is willing, regularly, to look like an idiot to some of the people — the heady Presbyterian academia. And they are writing a lot of books that we read and that we love, in many cases. But they are the ones who came up with theistic evolution.

Philip Right.

Sean Because, well, the words don’t have to mean exactly what they say — which is your point about the hermeneutic and the typological sort of reading. So, I mean, that car, the typological car, does not have brakes.

Philip Right.

Sean And maybe you can steer it well for a while.

Philip Yeah.

Sean But it does end up — and Wilson, like with creation, is totally willing to look like a complete idiot to a bunch of those other people by arguing for six-day creation.

Philip Right. Or, like, his view on the Nephilim. I mean, it’s a small thing.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But a lot of people just laugh at him about that.

Sean Yeah. So your point is: read the Bible, accept the Bible. Or one of his favorite phrases of, there’s no problem passages.

Philip Right, exactly right. No problem passages. So that is a Wilson thing.

But covenantalism and postmillennialism is dependent on a certain kind of hermeneutic that is typological, that is — some people don’t like the word allegorical, but it is allegorical. Where, you know, even, like, Israel: when it’s talking about Israel, it’s not exactly referring to just ethnic Israel. It encompasses all of God’s chosen people, Jew and Gentile, from Seth to the end of the age. And then they label that as the covenant of grace. And so it starts getting really messy and really convoluted.

And just like with theistic evolution — I think you made the point before as well, where, yeah, like, dispensational Bible readers don’t really come out with gay, lesbian, women preachers.

Sean Yeah.

Philip Like, it doesn’t really happen. A lot of that comes out of a certain type of hermeneutic.

Sean Yeah, I maybe — Wilson, who actually came up with the term “lesbyterians.”

Philip Right.

Sean There aren’t “lesbosationalists.”

Philip Right, that’s right.

Sean They don’t exist. They have other problems.

Philip They have other problems, exactly right. And there’s plenty to disagree critically — and even more so. And that’s what you’re talking about, where you wouldn’t really recommend people go to, like, Shepherds’ Conference as much as you would the Grace Agenda. So even there, like we said, on page we might agree with them, but there’s plenty to be wary of, or helpfully critical of.

But if we want to — we love that Moscow project and we want to duplicate it — we do believe that a consistent — and I don’t even like the word, the label, dispensational. I think it’s unfortunate that the entire framework is called about the dispensations. As opposed to, for me, it’s all based on believing that God is a covenant-keeping God.

And this is, again, a thing that Wilson keeps saying. God is the one who attributes, or who specifies, the terms and the parties and the stipulations of the covenants he’s made. And specifically, in this case, the covenants he’s made with the nation of Israel. And because we believe God is a covenant-keeping God, and he will fulfill his unilateral covenants, we are not what is called covenantalists.

And so reading the Bible in that way, I also think, is what is consistent then with living life in that way — where we can enjoy, like what you were saying, this glass of wine, this bread, this life with my kids, with my wife, here and now, today and in the present. As opposed to having to put a typological interpretation on, not just Scripture, but also the life today — reading history typologically and living life typologically. Everything I’m ever doing, I need to be able to see it as a means to an end.

And, yeah, I mean, if you’re going to read the Bible allegorically like that, the right way to live according to that then is to live in that way. But if we can accept Scripture for what it says — and, sure, I could be accused of not being fair to covenantalists, and that’s okay — but if we can accept Scripture for what it says, that Israel is Israel, the verses are the verses, the context is the context, then I can live my life that way as well.

I can enjoy my food, I can enjoy my family, my church, my time. I don’t need to be anxiously trying to figure out how my life is a symbol of a spiritual dynamic. I don’t need to be trying to put this kind of spiritual gloss over everything I’m doing. I can just enjoy this sandwich because it’s a good sandwich. And, yes, overall I’m living under the lordship of Christ. And that’s what is enabling me to just be here and now and loving where I’m at now.

Sean Yeah. At least you and I care about trying to be — well, I guess nobody would say that they don’t want to be consistent.

Philip Right.

Sean But we have a conviction about trying to think about that as much as possible. I get that a lot of people are just happy doing the stuff; they don’t need to necessarily have all of the thoughts connected to it, or they’re even trying to avoid the thoughts.

But, yeah, we would say — not that covenantalists or the Moscow group — we’re not saying that they are heretics.

Philip Right.

Sean I don’t even really prefer — I think it’s unnecessary to say that they’re even unbiblical. I’m not sure that that is helpful terminology in the discussion; more of an inflammatory nature anyway.

I would say, following up on what you were describing, that the way they’re reading the Bible and how they’re living is actually inconsistent — if, again, how you read the Bible is, well, this is an image of something else to be found out later.

Philip Right.

Sean Maybe.

Philip Right.

Sean And if Israel — there’s just one keyword that’s there, and that divides the covenantal-dispensationalist discussion: what is the meaning of Israel?

Philip Right.

Sean And, well, it means something more, that we needed later things to really show us. So that’s just an example. And if you apply that across the board, you can get in trouble — which is how then “day” doesn’t mean day, or whatever.

But however it has happened — and I think it’s related to earlier in the conversation — the “go to the Bible, believe the Bible” in general, and the faith that Jesus is Lord and we’re going to live for him, that is part of why we haven’t abandoned reading Doug Wilson books, or sending people there to be encouraged. Because there is a confidence — which even that word itself in Latin means “with faith.” So to be confident is to be living with faith.

They have — many in Moscow, including Wilson, his family — they are confident. Their worldview is comprehensive. They live it out conspicuously, so visibly, not just in their head, in a way that then is compelling, that draws other people — or, you know, are termed jealousable, people wanting that.

And so, for as much as we would say it’s not as consistent as we think it could be, it is a really awesome inconsistent.

While so many dispensationalists — and this is the part that makes me mad, but maybe hopefully it’s righteous anger, in my own needing to repent from being a dualistic dispensationalist — that is inconsistent. The dualism is inconsistent with how we claim we’re reading the Bible and taking it for what it says. What God says is good all the way through. So that is inconsistent.

We would say that some of what’s happening in Moscow is inconsistent. But I think I would rather have — it is tough.

Philip Yeah.

Sean Careful. I know. I —

Philip People are listening.

Sean I don’t like taking the hinges off the door of truth.

Philip Right.

Sean But we —

Philip If you have to choose.

Sean Yeah. I think the dispensationalists who are living by freaking out, but they’ve got the Bible verse —

Philip Right.

Sean — I think is a less good inconsistency than the “we’re going to live by faith and baptize our babies” kind of inconsistency.

Philip Right.

Sean And I get that they’re not saying it’s inconsistent with the pattern.

Philip Sure.

Sean Pattern is the argument.

But, like, even in my own family, I have started talking to some of my younger daughters about — well, we talked about young men of marriageable material in our last —

Philip Our last recording, yeah.

Sean Yeah, that wasn’t with Jonathan.

Philip Right.

Sean As we’re trying to encourage, raise, invite young men of marriageable material who have a comprehensive, confident, compelling, conspicuous, and consistent sort of Bible reading and practice — there aren’t, at the moment, lots of dispy boys.

Philip Right.

Sean Happy, joyful, obedient, seeking the Lord’s blessing here and now. Dispy boys.

Philip Right. On the offense.

Sean The dangerous dispies.

Philip That’s right. Taking dominion.

Sean There are some. And this is what I was trying to tell my girls: it’s not just because — you can’t just go find what we’re looking for at any Presbyterian church.

Philip Right.

Sean It is not just because they’re postmillennial, even, that they are necessarily living by faith.

Philip Right.

Sean But there is a kind of — and most seeming to be concentrated in a Moscow mood kind of place — there is a lot of living by faith there that is worth paying attention to. And that kind of baby-baptizing group, for as much as I don’t like the door open —

Philip Right.

Sean The typological door.

Philip Right.

Sean Is it really even a door, or does that just represent something else?

Philip That’s right.

Sean For as much as I don’t like that, I love the living by faith.

And that’s what I told the person that I was in conversation with. “Well, why do you like so much of Wilson, Moscow, and yet are still holding off on becoming Presby, covie, paedobaptizing people?”

Philip You’re only being sprinkled by the Moscow mood. You’re not getting dunked into —

Sean I am so only sprinkled, yeah.

But the living by faith is not just interesting, it’s right. And, actually, would that all Christians live by faith like that.

Philip Right. Well, yeah, you’re not going to find consistency completely anywhere, right? So, I mean, any kind of hero of history, or even in the Bible, apart from Christ — a lot of the men of faith in the Bible stumbled big time in different areas. And in history, reformers, and current day.

And so having that kind of standard seems unreasonable. Like, I’m not going to ally myself with anybody who I can’t be fully, consistently in agreement with.

Sean Yeah. So we ought to try to pursue the consistency in our own lives, but in terms of who we can network with, appreciate —

Philip Work with.

Sean Maybe even marry.

Philip Exactly right. So that’s — and then to marry for our kids. So you’re going to have to choose your inconsistencies. Not for yourself, but for the people that you are in contact with, in the network.

Sean Compromise. That’s our —

Philip That’s the sixth one, right. Hey, these are more C’s.

Sean This is more C — I didn’t even —

Philip Yeah, that’s funny.

Sean Compromise for copulation. That’s a different kind of —

Philip Man. We’re just throwing these things up.

Sean I did go to seminary, so, yeah.

Philip I did not, so it’s not — yeah. I have to work harder.

But, yeah, you’re going to have to choose your inconsistencies. And so even for future generations, thinking about — so I just talked about covenant kids.

Sean Yeah.

Philip And so, thinking about our future generations. And so we like the word covenant family, but in the sense of the marriage covenant, as opposed to the covenant of grace, or even the new covenant. But we are thinking — we want to think about our families covenantally that way, where I have vowed with my wife to be within this covenant, under God as my witness, and then for the sake of having godly offspring. Not just the direct generation, but generations to come. I am aiming for that, and I want that with all of those C’s given to them.

So if I’m going to have to — I don’t know. Yeah, “compromise” is a sucky word. It’s a crappy word. But you’re going to have to choose somewhere.

And so, what cards are you dealt here, in this position? So I enjoy the game of poker. I’m not any good, but I like the —

Sean Cards.

Philip Yeah, cards, right. I like the thinking behind it. And so it’s not just about the cards you’re dealt, but also your position at the table in reference to the order of play. And that order changes every round, and so it matters. You could play the same hand differently depending on what order it is.

And so we are here now, within specifically our context of dispies, dangerous dispies taking dominion, right? That’s what we’re trying to do. What is the best way for us to move forward generationally?

And, yeah, we want young men specifically meeting all of that criteria, those five. But if we were to have to choose something — it seems like, I agree, I’m setting up my great-grandkids to be able to have a life of faith through embodied joy under the lordship of Christ much better if I am prioritizing that — a life of faith, embodied joy under the worship of Christ — in their spousal pursuits, over consistent biblical interpretation.

And so that’s where the conversation of dispensationalism, covenantalism — yes, it’s important, but holding it — this is difficult for me to say.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But holding it —

Sean I don’t need anyone to hear it.

Philip Right. Close your ears.

Holding it in a place where you are unwilling to move, or, this is the hill I am going to die on, seems unwise.

Sean Yeah. Like, I would probably take a bunch of rounds — I would take a bunch of shots on the hill. But probably not wanting to die on the hill.

Philip Right. There are more important hills to die on than that, given our current context.

Yes — if our community had a lot of that flourishing, and Lord willing, that’s what we’re trying to build, that’s what we’re trying to do generationally through our covenant kids, then that wouldn’t even be a necessary question. You know, okay, why are you looking somewhere else?

But this is the hand we’re dealt, and this is the position at the table. And so, you’re saying, you’ve had these kinds of conversations with your daughters about, okay, we have to keep our eyes open to that extent, and not just cut the lifeline at the first thing that we disagree with on that topic.

That’s difficult. But is that the path of wisdom? Is that the path of faith?

Sean Yeah. I mean, you can mess up a lot of things, but if you are living by faith — the embodied joy. Is that how you said it?

Philip Yeah.

Sean The living by faith, expecting by faith God to bless you living by faith. So, embodied joy should be how that looks, and recognizing we’re doing that because Jesus is the Lord.

But, you know, people build arks by faith. Like, Noah had other problems, but he survived a global flood because God blessed him, because he acted by faith. And in Hebrews 11 — Abram moved his whole people to a new land, and made a bunch of dumb mistakes, but he kept living by faith that God was going to bless him as God had said. And that is what mattered.

Others battled and conquered kingdoms; others were sawn in two. They suffered. So there was great success, there was great suffering. But living by faith meant God’s blessing. And that’s what I want for my kids and my grandkids and all the people in the church.

Philip Right.

Sean We want them to be blessed, and living by faith is the key.

And, you know, subpoint — not really a footnote — but I think we would say that a proper understanding of God’s word in the covenants, like lowercase-c covenants, or capital C Covenants, of the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant especially, the Davidic covenant of —

Philip The covenants in the Bible.

Sean Yeah. The Messiah ruling actually on a throne in Jerusalem over all of the nations on earth. Like, those biblical covenants, right?

We would say that a good understanding of that should increase our faith. Because they’re not fuzzy, or cloudy, or invented by man.

Philip Right.

Sean Or representing something else, to be hermeneutically decided later. Like, they do build our faith if we properly understand it.

But in the meantime, there’s a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, think that those covenants get all wrapped up into some others — but as long as they’re living by faith. And that is — it seems rare. Disappointing that it is so rare, that the Moscowers are some of the few that are genuinely living by an awesome faith. Being blessed. Fruit is inescapably visible; huge orchard of fruit. Even though we’d say there’s some inconsistencies in the explanations.

Philip Right. And that is what we want. Yeah, we want, like I said, orchards of fruit coming out of faith for generations to come. We want that for our kids, for our generations. And so, setting up for that.

Sean And, I mean, however much longer we are chatting about this — again, I have been blessed, even unto and through repentance from dualism, pietism. I have been blessed. I wouldn’t be in my position of seeing blessings apart from God’s use of what I think is their inconsistency.

So, whatever — thank you, Lord, for their work, and for your work through them, and in particular in Doug himself. I have a hard time calling him Douglas, though I know that’s technically his name.

Philip Douglas Wilson. Are the new ones then Doug Wilson?

Sean No, they’re still Douglas.

Philip Oh, they’re still Douglas? Okay.

Sean That’s what he says his name is. But he doesn’t stop you from calling him Doug.

But, yeah, I don’t know how I could be more thankful.

Philip Right.

Sean I am always edified by what he says, even if I disagree.

Philip Right.

Sean It’s still helpful, challenging, sharpening.

Philip Yep.

Sean Tasty.

Philip Yeah.

Sean Tasty sometimes even when I disagree. Even when it’s bad for me. Even when it’s bad for my dispensationalism.

Philip Yeah. It’s like eating junk food. It’s bad for you, but you like it.

Sean Yeah. So, super thankful, and wish that there was more of that spread throughout his Presbyterian troubles.

Philip Yeah.

And then maybe one more point. I think it’s okay if we talk a little more. But apart from the joy and that kind of life of faith, that culture — and we’ve touched on this — is also not just sitting around on the beach enjoying their life under the lordship of Christ. They are out taking dominion, they’re out on the offense, fighting. And, yes, Wilson attributes that to postmillennialism.

But that part as well — did one of your C’s cover that?

Sean I don’t know.

Philip To actually go and take dominion in that way.

But specifically for Wilson, what he does — and he’s doing this now with a lot of the stuff he’s getting for being like a Jew sympathizer. So he does this thing, where he does it all the time, which is interesting, where he’ll throw something out or say something that — I can’t think of a good analogy — but it draws a lot of the vile out onto himself. And then it makes it very visible of who is where. And so you know who’s on what side right away.

And so he kind of just puts himself out there and draws out different positions, or people who will hate what he says, onto himself. So even Wilson, being a covenantalist, is taking way more crap and insults, personal insults —

Sean Yeah.

Philip — his way, that dispensationalists don’t get. He is, in some sense, fighting for even a dispensational position, from some pretty vile and nasty antisemites.

And so he does this in different contexts, but today this seems like this is a context that is happening. And that kind of fighting nature, where, I’m going to put myself on the battlefield and take all the shots, so that you guys can see where the sniper rifles are located, and then you can shoot back.

Right? So it’s like, we don’t see where the sniper rifles are. I’m going to step out on the battlefield, take the bullets, and you’ll be able to see and fire back.

And so him doing that, having those kind of balls to be able to continue doing that throughout his life in different contexts, is part of that kind of advance that we want.

Sean Yeah. With the Jews in particular, he is taking all of the artillery, and he only believes thirty percent —

Philip Right.

Sean — of what the Jews are going to get, from what we would say.

Philip We’re sitting over here like, keep your mouth shut, you’re going to get shot.

Sean And, yeah, he doesn’t even think that they’re going to get all of the things promised to them — just that there’ll be a generation that will repent. Which is good. It’s not nothing.

Philip Right.

Sean Just not all the promises. And still taking that. Yeah. The courage. The jolly lightning rod.

Philip That’s maybe the other C: courage.

Sean Yeah.

Philip But, yeah, so there’s more things to be thankful for, for Doug and Moscow and that whole project. Things to disagree with.

And maybe we could end with this, where you’ve said this before: that we are setting ourselves and our people up, to an extent, to have a certain kind of frustration, to have to be able to hold things in tension.

And, like, is this good? Is it not good? Is it wise? Is it not? Are we fooling ourselves by trying to do that?

Sean Yeah. I see significant difficulties for people who hate tension.

And also, I think — if not just to encourage myself in the conversation — but isn’t living by faith living in tension itself? So, when you’re living on unseen things to do seen things; when, if faith is the evidence of things not seen — then whether you’re postmil or premil, you’re trying to do the work. You’re battling and you’re building based off of things that you aren’t sure you’re going to get to see.

Even some of the more recent things that come out of the Moscow postmillennialism — they’re not opposed to recognizing serious dips in the advance of Christianity and the cultural effects of Christianity. They’re not opposed to long historical dips, on the long view toward taking over in Christ’s name before he returns. So they’re not opposed to recognizing you might not get to see all the fruit of your labor. You might not get to see —

Philip Right.

Sean — the glory of the Lord on everybody’s lips in your lifetime, among all the nations.

So even a recognition of genuine, lengthy postmillennialism still has to live by faith. That is still the tension.

Philip Right.

Sean So, working here, embodied, and doing it joyfully demands the tension of faith. And that is the only way to please God. So we actually can’t get his blessing unless he’s pleased. And the way to please him is not by having no tension.

Philip Right.

Sean So, whatever is holding tension — whatever are even some compromises that we make by faith — this is actually the only way to be a Christian. You have to have some of that, by faith in the unseen, tension. Like I say, not just going to the beach to hang out and waiting.

Philip Right.

Sean Not just sitting in your bunker waiting for the rapture to happen. But actually getting the butt out of the chair and doing something by faith, not actually sure how it’s going to work out.

Philip Right.

Okay, well, and to close — I did share this little video of specifically Doug Wilson. He was talking to a couple guys about postmillennialism, covenantalism, and he said that he’s had this dream, or I think he said daydream, of the world being full of the glory of the Lord, and all the nations having the lordship of Christ on their tongues, bowing the knee — so, a realized postmillennial vision — and it was all accomplished by dispensationalists.

And so Wilson laughs about that. And so I take that as a rallying cry for us: that, yeah, let’s make that happen. Being the dangerous dispies taking dominion, and carrying — even standing on Wilson’s shoulders — to bring that about.

Sean Amen.

Philip All right.