DeYoung, Wilson, & Biblical Rhetoric
The current debate between Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson provides ample opportunity for Christians to consider the subject of rhetoric.
On November 27, DeYoung published an essay critiquing Wilson and Moscow on his site Clearly Reformed. In short, DeYoung’s critique is that Wilson’s approach, and Moscow’s approach after him, is too sarcastic, too inconsiderate of other Christians, too focused on the cultural zeitgeist, too egotistic, too combative, and too vulgar. At best, Wilson’s error is an error of degree, and his emphases are simply out of balance; he should talk about certain things less and certain things more, and he should talk a certain way less and a certain way more. At worst, Wilson’s error is an error of kind. In other words, there are certain emphases he has that he shouldn’t have, and there are certain things he says that he shouldn’t say.
On December 4, Wilson published a response to DeYoung’s essay on his site DougWils. In short, Wilson’s response is that the fruit of the Moscow approach is significantly good and blessed, that it’s not prudent to focus on one’s reputation, that the Moscow side has given many invitations to cooperate with other Christians, that influential evangelical organizations aren’t so evangelical anymore, that his and Canon Press’s emphases have been right on point, and that all (or almost all) of his uses of sarcasm and strong language have been defensible and necessary.
It was not my original intention to wait these several months to publish this essay. However, I think I’ve benefited from the time I’ve had to think about these issues and learn from reading and study I’ve done elsewhere. I hope my analysis and argument proves to be helpful and persuasive.
Offline Fruit vs. Online Fruit
I think an important distinction needs to be made in this discussion, and this is the distinction between offline fruit and online fruit. Offline fruit would be the good works and Christlike attitude that Wilson, Rigney, Longshore, and others perceive in their families, friendships, and churches. Online fruit would be the good works and Christlike attitude (or lack thereof) from fans of Moscow that those on social media more readily perceive. I would argue that Wilson and DeYoung talk past each other a bit because this distinction was not clearly made.
Wilson and his friends see clear gospel fruit from their ministry, which DeYoung notes: “Wilson has a family that loves him and loves Christ.” So they’re confused when DeYoung talks about his concerns with the long-term effects of the Moscow Mood: “My bigger concern is with the long-term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating the Moscow mood. For the mood that attracts people to Moscow is too often incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom Project.” But there’s nothing to be confused about. In the first instance, DeYoung lauds the practical, offline fruit of Moscow. In the second instance, DeYoung questions the virtual, online fruit of Moscow.
Longshore argues that DeYoung is clearly wrong about the spiritual health of Moscow: “Kevin could not be more wrong about his supposed detrimental and long-term spiritual effects of the Moscow mood.” He later says, “It has had good spiritual effects for some time and it looks to be on a trajectory to continue to bear some great long-term spiritual fruit.” Jared delineates some of this fruit: singing the Psalms, reading the Bible, prayer meetings, as well as good mirth and cheer. Wilson concurs: “For any reasonable person who has spent any time here in Moscow, or who knows anything at all about us, it is evident that many remarkable blessings are taking shape here.” But this reply misses the point because Jared and Kevin are not talking about the same thing. Kevin is emphasizing the vices of online Moscow, while Jared is emphasizing the virtues of offline Moscow. And I don’t think either of them is being deceptive or disingenuous. I believe Jared when he says that there’s a lot of good fruit from their ministry. And I believe Kevin when he says that the online reputation of Moscow is concerning.
Parkison also finds the online Moscow sphere concerning: Moscow has “a tendency to aggravate a hyper-critical judgment on all things woke: a messaging that might be crudely summarized as, You’re right: all your leaders have failed you and it’s time to start burning bridges. Come hang with us and those like us.” There seems to be great practical fruit locally in Moscow, but online Moscow seems to have a bit of rot in their fruit. Parkison continues, “The ‘Moscow Mood’ online certainly appeared to be marked by a delight in scorning. Rigney and others may counter that they are merely mocking evil, but the thing I’m describing – the immature trolling and constant snarky put downs – appears to me to be less like Elijah laughing at the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40), and more like offering a seat to scoffers (Ps 1:1).” Parkison further notes a degree of ungracious, vicious trolling in the online Moscow sphere.
Murray Campbell, in his response to this debate, explicitly shows this trolling. Karen S Prior (a progressive Christian) tweeted “Thanks for speaking up,” in response to DeYoung’s essay. Some of the responses of Moscow fans included:
“Jezebel herself gives this article the stamp of approval @RevKevDeyoung, congrats.”
“Oh look it’s the slander who stabbed Tom Buck and his wife in the back. Repent and shut up lady.”
“Do you still endorse the Revoice conference? I’d love it if you spoke up on their dangerous errors.”
“I’m a Presbyterian from Indiana. So was Jim Jones – another showman. Do I expect mass suicide from Wilson? No. Violence directed outward? Perhaps. This article is erudite pundrity that fails to acknowledge current harm and potential danger.”
“Hey @RevKevDeYoung, when this apostate praises you, you should really do some reflection.”
Campbell rightfully points out that responses like this simply prove DeYoung’s point and demonstrate that his concern is justified.
Generally speaking, then, while I have no doubts about the good fruit in the local community of Moscow, the fruit in the online community is mixed at best. The adversarial stance and frequent trolling of Moscow appears to unhelpfully encourage a lot of people, particularly young men, to embrace an unforgiving, irreverent attitude.
Sarcasm
One of the main points of contention between DeYoung’s side and Wilson’s side is the proper use of sarcasm. Both sides acknowledge that Scripture employs a sarcastic tone sometimes, and both sides agree that sarcasm can be used by Christians in some contexts. But it is clear that the Moscow side employs this tool much more liberally than DeYoung would advise.
What’s DeYoung’s case? In his essay, he argues that the 2023 No Quarter November promo video is a good example of what he finds concerning and also a good encapsulation of the Moscow Mood. As a quick summary, NQN is designed to be a period in which Doug Wilson writes directly and forcefully, with little to no qualification. Wilson lays out his complete opinions on the culture with no reservations. DeYoung says that this video “strikes a tone that is deliberately sarcastic and just a little bit naughty.” But he doesn’t think this tone is unique to NQN. DeYoung argues that the sarcastic tone is a mainstay in Doug’s blog, and elsewhere in Moscow: “And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears.” DeYoung also notes that there seems to be a tension, if not a contradiction, between the seriousness of the matters Wilson writes about and the tone Wilson uses when writing about them: “Wilson wants us to believe that the stakes could not be higher … At the same time, Wilson’s online persona is almost always Wodehousian fun and games.”
DeYoung makes clear that sarcasm can be used well: “Sarcasm can be a holy weapon in the Lord’s army.” But he thinks it should not be used frequently: “But sarcasm and satire by the minister are best used sparingly and against those whose hearts are set against the truth. But Wilson makes fun of those who could be allies and loves to troll people who disagree with him.” DeYoung asserts that, while he knows Wilson can strike a “wise, gracious, resolute” tone, it doesn’t appear that Wilson wants to primarily use a tone like this.
Toby Sumpter’s response to this is that a readily sarcastic spirit is necessary for a healthy ‘biblical immune system.’ “I mean that the Moscow Mood of not giving up, not giving in, and determining to fight for a Christ-honoring culture is strategic and necessary because it is central to a healthy and thriving biblical immune system.” For Sumpter, an irreverent wit is part of our Christian toolkit: “And too irreverent? If only we could topple more idols. If only we had more sarcasm for the Goliaths that taunt the armies of the living God.”
The concept of an immune system is important to Sumpter. This is partly because he thinks the absence of such an immune system leads to doctrinal defection in universities and churches: “But after a hundred years of losing our denominations, colleges, and seminaries, you’d think some folks might realize that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked.” Related to this is the predominant tone and style of Doug Wilson. By his own admission, Wilson is known as a more acerbic and spicy voice than your R C Sproul, Mark Dever, or Paul Washer. But Sumpter thinks Wilson’s voice is exactly what we need: “DeYoung suggests that Wilson be more like Al Mohler … But Al Mohler, for all the wonderful good he has done (and there is a great deal to praise), has not kept the woke virus out of Southern and he submitted to the worldly zeitgeist of face masks.”
For Joe Rigney, satire is both an appeal to reality and a form of rebuke: “At one level, satire is an appeal to reality over against the absurdities of sin and rebellion. It often appeals to those who live amidst corruption and hypocrisy, while provoking those who practice them. But satire is also a form of rebuke and admonition, deployed to correct and reprove someone when they’re heading down a sinful or foolish path.” Sarcasm can be used with varying levels of severity: “Like other forms of rebuke, it operates on a dimmer switch: light rebuke … heavy rebuke … heaviest rebuke.” Moreover, like Sumpter, Rigney points to the value of an immune system: “Could it be that the satirical element in the Moscow Mood is part of a healthy immune system, preventing certain respectable kinds of ideological rot from ever taking root?”
Regarding sarcasm, Rigney asserts that “outside of Moscow and the Babylon Bee, I can’t think of anyone attempting to deploy that kind of biblical speech in confronting worldliness and rebellion.” Rigney critiques DeYoung because the latter gives off the impression that there is little to no place for sarcasm in the sphere of biblical speech. He asks the rhetorical question here: “What’s the right ratio, and how do we know?” He notes that, given the many words that Moscow has written over the years, sarcasm makes up only a small portion of them.
I think DeYoung is right here. Sarcasm is used in Scripture from time to time: it’s used by God in his rebuke of Job (Job 38), by Elijah against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27), by Micaiah against Ahab (1 Kings 22:15), and by Isaiah against Israel (Isaiah 1:10, 6:9-10) – and these aren’t the only examples. However, to be honest, I think sarcasm’s primary use is comedy, not rebuke. For this reason, I usually find the No Quarter November videos to be funny and entertaining because of their combination of quality production and over-the-top style. The NQN videos themselves don’t bother me, but the fact that this style and tone figure prominently in other areas of Moscow’s material is cause for concern. In other words, the use of sarcasm is disproportionate; there’s too much of one flavor in Moscow.
Moreover, I disagree with Sumpter regarding the value of sarcasm for a biblical immune system. Obviously, I think it’s important that Christians guard against error, wickedness, and hard-heartedness, but I don’t think the use of sarcasm is necessary for this task. Sarcasm is a delightful gift from God and I feel bad for those who don’t get to enjoy the comedic fruits of it, but surely a lack of satirical wit doesn’t inhibit sanctification. If the use of sarcasm is necessary for a biblical immune system, and an immune system is necessary for holiness and sanctification, then sarcasm starts to become pretty important. However, if the tool of sarcasm is truly this important, then why don’t Jesus or Paul have any commands pertaining to sarcasm? Jesus and Paul use sarcasm occasionally, but they don’t command the use of it.
Combativeness & Mockery
Another concern DeYoung has regarding Wilson (and Moscow) is the fairly persistent use of combative language: “The strategy is not to link arms with other networks, but to punch hard and punch often … And that means always meming his critics, always tweaking his opponents, and never (that I’ve seen) cultivating a broken-hearted and courageous contrition for the remaining sinfulness in our own hearts.” He continues later in the essay: “And with so many of Wilson’s videos and blogs, what he’s winning an audience with is a spirit of derision, cavalier repartee, and the drinking down of liberal tears.”
Toby Sumpter clearly expresses the need for combativeness: “We sing Psalms in four part harmonies while we mock the prophets of Baal and the schoolmarm Pharisees of our day, just like Jesus did and all of the faithful prophets.” Just as Sumpter says we’re not irrevent and sarcastic enough, we’re also not combative enough: “Sure, we must not be jerks; and the fruit of the Spirit must be vibrant in all that we do and say. But I’m sorry: too pugnacious when the forces of globalistic sexual fascism are surrounding us and gunning for our children? No, if anything, we are not pugnacious enough.” For Sumpter, we are past the time for more diplomatic measures: “Of course there is a kind of callousness that is utterly unchristian, but when the Titanic is sinking, this is not time for niceties and platitudes.” Furthermore, Christians, at least in this time and place, should have a wartime mindset: “It is strategically necessary and biblically necessary for our children and our children’s children, that we might not forget how to war (Jdg 3:2).”
Joe Rigney argues that there are several legitimate rhetorical devices (which, according to him, DeYoung conflates) that Christians can use: “writing with Chestertonian joy and Wodehousian verve, playfully mocking other Christians through memes, derisively mocking the folly and compromise of Christian leaders, shockingly indicting sin and idolatry through carefully employed obscenities and vulgarities.” Rigney maintains that an insult like “Wokey McWokeface” is legitimate in the same way Elijah’s mockery of the prophets of Baal is legitimate.
Samuel Parkison maintains that Moscow is brash and combative, and they know it: “When the Canon Press twitter account exists almost solely to troll others, or when your promotional material begins with ‘Hey, Wokey McWokeface,’ you are not allowed to plead innocent and say, ‘We’re not trying to be known as pugnacious – that’s the label we’ve been given and we can’t control what we’re known for.’” According to Parkison, this disposition indulges in a form of worldliness: “It’s not ‘worldly’ in the sense that it is trying to get accolades from the world; it’s ‘worldly’ in the sense that it appeals to a worldly, carnal, and vicious delight in scoffing.” Moreover, it doesn’t seem that the Moscow tribe ever thinks they’ve mocked and derided too much: “Is it genuinely possible (not just ‘theoretically so’) for the Moscow tribe and its spokespeople to actually cross a real line into sinful sneering? If so, when has that ever happened or been acknowledged?”
Murray Campbell makes the case, rightfully so, that a combative spirit should not be the norm, and it shouldn’t be what we’re known for: “If Jesus overturned tables and made a whip that’s what we’re going to do. If Jesus can call Pharisees ‘vipers,’ then let’s make sure we stick that in our rhetorical rifle and fire off a round every day. After all, if we do it often enough we will aim true at some point. Friend, not every word is meant to sound as though we’re Elijah or Ezekiel in their boldest moments.” Though there are occasions for anger and severity, Campbell argues that “surely this cannot be our only sustained note in public. We musn’t gather around rage and all we find problematic, but around the Gospel of grace.”
As with sarcasm, DeYoung is right when it comes to mockery and combativeness. These tools are disproportionately used by Wilson and the Moscow crowd. As I’ve argued before, mockery should rarely be used by Christians because mockery is usually sinful. Mockery almost always has a negative connotation in Scripture: “How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!” (Psalm 1:1; see my previous essay on this). Mockery usually goes hand in hand with blasphemy, rebellion, scorn, malice, arrogance, and foolishness. Examples from Elijah or Jesus are exceptions to the rule.
One thing I find frustrating with the Moscow crowd is the apparent lack of acknowledgement that Elijah’s or Jesus’ use of mockery is exceptional. We have to remember who they were mocking. Elijah mocked hundreds of demon worshipers while they prayed to their god in the context of a dramatic confrontation between God and Baal. Furthermore, after God sent fire down on Elijah’s altar, Elijah himself executed all the prophets of Baal. This is clearly a unique case. Before we mock like Elijah did, we should pause and consider whether the stakes in our situation are anywhere close to what they were in 1 Kings 18.
The case of Jesus’ woes in Matthew 23 is similarly unique. Jesus pronounces woes on false, hypocritical teachers (the scribes and Pharisees) who are full of self-righteousness, arrogance, greed, self-indulgence, and more. And these same teachers lead others astray in their error and immorality and thus prepare them for judgment: “‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to make one convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as fit for hell as you are!’” (23:15). Moreover, these are the same scribes and Pharisees who are responsible for the death of Jesus and those following him: “‘Snakes! Brood of vipers! How can you escape being condemned to hell? This is why I am sending you prophets, sages, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town’” (23:33-34). Should we give a similar treatment to fellow evangelicals who shortsightedly put their foot in their mouth? Those don’t seem like equivalent situations.
Also, if it is truly so essential to be pugnacious, I would say (as with sarcasm): why didn’t Jesus and Paul encourage pugnacity as a virtue? From what I can tell, they encouraged the opposite: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9). “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace” (Galatians 5:22). “Let all bitterness, anger, and wrath, shouting, and slander be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another, just as God also forgave you in Christ” (Ephesians 4:31-32). “And let the peace of Christ, to which you were also called in one body, rule your hearts. And be thankful” (Colossians 3:15). I’ve argued before that military themes are prominent in both the Old Testament and New Testament. In other words, the people of God have real enemies; in the new covenant, these enemies are primarily spiritual. Christians, then, should be equipped to do battle (since they are in a war), but not in a needlessly provocative or aggressive manner. The primary weapons of God’s people are truth, righteousness, peace, faith, and salvation (Ephesians 6:13-17), not sarcasm, mockery, and pugnacity.
Strong Language
My argument regarding strong language is much the same as my arguments regarding sarcasm and mockery. Is the use of strong language, in some cases, defensible? Yes. Is the use of strong language necessary? I’m not convinced.
DeYoung makes his position clear on this issue: “Even more troubling is Wilson’s deliberate decision to use uncouth (at best) and sinful (at worst) language, especially language of a sexual nature.” He further argues that if he were to use language like this, his elders would confront him. “Rightly so, for such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking (Eph 5:4). Which of the Puritans, or Southern Presbyterians for that matter, would have dared to speak this way?” DeYoung admits that the Old Testament prophets used extreme language at times, and the prophet Ezekiel occasionally has some vivid sexual language. However, as I argued above, these instances in Scripture are exceptional, not normative. The idolatry of Israel is not in the same ballpark as institutional drift or ambiguity from Reformed Christians. DeYoung says, “Likening a study committee of a confessionally Reformed denomination to Dolly Parton’s anatomy is none of these things [that is, not akin to Ezekiel]. It’s juvenile, sensuous, and entirely without biblical warrant.”
Sumpter believes that Wilson’s sexual language in this instance is justified. “Read the article. Follow the links. He used extreme language in an extreme situation to call out an extreme wickedness.” I read the article, and I followed the links. While the practice of the Presbyterians in this case (those Wilson critiqued) was lamentable, I am not persuaded that this can be called extreme to the third degree. And, again, even if I’m underestimating the problem that Wilson is critiquing here, I can’t imagine that great Christian men from history that I respect, such as John Calvin, John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Archibald Alexander, Samuel Miller, Charles Hodge, and B B Warfield, would have ever considered using language like Wilson did in this instance. Godly men, especially godly ministers, should know how and when to use severe language, but godly men do not need to know how and when to use obscene language.
Wilson points to the Gospel Coalition in his response to DeYoung: “Kevin, and the men in his circle, do not mind being associated with certain words. They embrace that association. They recommend that Christians go to movies that are filled with it. But they do mind that kind of language being deployed against the sins of the age by a fellow Christian.” This argument misses the point. I have zero confidence that DeYoung and any other author at TGC condone the use of explicit language in the movies they see and review (I don’t either). Many movies would clearly be made better if there was no explicit language in them. Moreover, the fact that a Christian watches a movie or listens to a song that has explicit language doesn’t mean that said Christian enjoys or wishes to promote such language in said movie or song.
Wilson elaborates on his approach to strong language: “In my cooking, over the course of millions of words, I have on occasion put in a red hot one. True enough. I have done this deliberately, seeking to be obedient, mindful of the context, and with great care concerning what kind of dish it is supposed to be. The way I use it, the pepper is not a sin, I am not arguing that it is okay to sin if you only keep the ratios right. Rather, it is not a sin if it is being deployed righteously.”
I’ll say a few things on this: (1) I simply don’t think that the reward is worth the risk. The potential reward is that the use of strong language will make a rebuke a little more incisive and convicting than it would be otherwise. The potential risk is that the use of strong language would be inappropriate and insensitive, and would lead some to dismiss the argument and others to foolishly follow suit and use more strong language. (2) The use of strong language is not necessary, for personal sanctification or rebuke. When I was younger, I generally held that it would be permissible to use words like “f**k” if the situation was extreme enough (for example, on the frontlines of war). But, at this point, I still don’t think it would be necessary. Urgency and immediacy can be effectively communicated without the vocabulary of General Patton. (3) As aforementioned, Wilson’s approach would be foreign to many exemplary Christians of the past. This argument alone isn’t absolutely conclusive. But, anecdotally, if there’s little to no precedent for your approach, it would be better to err on the side of caution and reservation. In other words, we may get to heaven and find out that all of Wilson’s uses of explicit language were justified and even righteous, but I don’t think DeYoung and others will be faulted for failing to use such language in their toolkit.
Campbell helpfully calls attention to some relevant verses for this discussion. Each one should encourage us to pause before using strong or explicit language:
Matthew 12:36 “I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to account for every careless word they speak.”
Ephesians 4:29 No foul language should come from your mouth, but only what is good for building someone up in need, so that it gives grace to those who hear.
1 Timothy 4:12 Don’t let anyone despise your youth, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, and in purity.
James 3:5-6 So too, though the tongue is a small part of the body, it boasts great things. Consider how a small fire sets ablaze a large forest. And the tongue is a fire. The tongue, a world of unrighteousness, is placed among our members. It stains the whole body, sets the course of life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
Invitation
This essay has been critical of those in Moscow. But one thing I especially want to highlight and promote is their willingness to meet face-to-face and discuss these issues:
Rigney says: “And so the offer is still open, to DeYoung, to the guys at G3, to Rod Dreher, to any other critics who think these issues matter. Just shoot me a DM.”
Wilson says: “Responding in writing would be fine, but I believe that person-to-person, face-to-face, would be far preferable. Uri Brito, presiding minister of the CREC, has offered to broker something like that, and I would be delighted to participate in such an event, or in anything like it. Uri would be a faithful moderator.”
I think DeYoung should take them up on the offer; I agree that resolution would probably be more likely and more complete if a discussion happened face-to-face. Based on my knowledge, it would be unfair for DeYoung (and anyone else who agrees with his case) to write a serious critique of Moscow but simultaneously be unwilling to engage in further discussion. A lot of clarity and unity could come out of such a discussion.
Conclusion
I’d like to conclude by drawing attention to a couple of passages from Christian men in history that I respect, which have helped me in my reflection on biblical rhetoric. First, I think R L Dabney’s advice on preaching style has application for us beyond the pulpit:
“But the style of the pulpit must surpass that of secular orators in seriousness or gravity. The moral, spiritual, and divine truths which exclusively occupy the preacher, the sacredness of his professed motive, and the momentous stake which his hearers have in the transaction, – all show that levity of thought or manner would here be an odious fault. Jocular images, satire, and sarcasm are not the sword of the spirit. They may amuse or irritate, but they do not make the heart better” (Dabney, p. 288).
He goes on:
“Satire and sarcasm are inconsistent with that pitying love, which should animate the appeals of a sinner saved by grace to his doomed fellow-creatures. Sarcasm is usually the language of malice. It is claimed as an exception, that we hear Isaiah satirizing the folly of idol-worshippers, Elijah mocking the priests of Baal, and our Saviour scourging hypocrisy with the lash of sarcasm. This is true; but they were inspired and extraordinary preachers: our more humble position should teach us to resort very sparingly to such weapons” (Dabney, pp. 288-289)
Second, I think Samuel Miller’s remarks on John Newton should encourage us to follow Newton’s excellent example:
“Scarcely any religious letter-writer ever exceeded Mr. Newton. Those in question, in particular, have one excellence which renders them a model in this class of writings. Forty-nine fiftieths of all the controversial writings on the subject of religion, that I have ever met with, in the course of a long life, have been by far too polemical in their language and spirit. That is, they too often reminded the reader, however decent, and even polite the style, of ‘the tug of war.’ Newton had the rare talent of arguing with an errorist with so much paternal benignity, as well as force, and of conducting all his controversial arguments with such constant practical appeals to the heart, as entirely to disarm the polemical spirit. This is a happy art; or rather, I should say, a precious gift of grace, which nothing but a large measure of the Spirit of Christ can enable any man with entire success to exhibit. We are never so likely to convince and win an adversary, as when we can so address him as to make him forget that we are arguing against him, and open his whole heart to our affectionate appeals. Newton had this talent in as great a degree as almost any man ever had” (Miller, pp. 390-391).
What a good it would be if all the rhetoric of Christians today was guided by these passages. Let us take care then to have our speech be appropriately marked by gravity and solemnity, as well as affection and compassion.
References
Christian Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers (2017).
Campbell, Murray. “How we speak does matter” (Nov 29, 2023). https://murraycampbell.net/2023/11/29/how-we-speak-does-matter/
Dabney, R. L. Evangelical Eloquence: A Course of Lectures on Preaching. Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust (2019).
DeYoung, Kevin. “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood” (Nov 27, 2023). https://clearlyreformed.org/on-culture-war-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-mood/
Longshore, Jared. “The Moscow Mood for DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed” (Dec 4, 2023). https://jaredrlongshore.com/2023/12/04/the-moscow-mood-for-deyoung-the-restless-and-the-reformed/
Miller, Samuel. “The Force of Truth” from Princeton and the Work of the Christian Ministry: Volume I. Edited by James M. Garretson. Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust (2020).
Parkison, Samuel. “DeYoung, Rigney, and the Moscow Mood” (Dec 5, 2023). https://samuelparkison.wordpress.com/2023/12/05/deyoung-rigney-and-the-moscow-mood/
Rigney, Joseph. “On Satire, Moods, and What We’re Known For” (Dec 1, 2023). https://americanreformer.org/2023/12/on-satire-moods-and-what-were-known-for/
Sumpter, Toby. “The Hole in Kevin DeYoung’s Holiness” (Dec 1, 2023). https://tobyjsumpter.com/the-hole-in-kevin-deyoungs-holiness/
Wilson, Douglas. “My Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung” (Dec 4, 2023). https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/novembers-done-kevin-deyoung.html
