*Language Warning* - Kevin DeYoung Uses Explicit Language in His Article - Part 4

All right, everybody, welcome back to the channel. I hope you had a good Lord's Day, a good weekend, everything, a good everything.

Let's jump right back into it today. This is part four of the response to Kevin DeYoung.

You know, each part has had its own mood, right? You know, it's not just the Moscow mood. We're not just one dimensional over here.

You know, we've had the pleading. We've had the funny joking around. We've had the anger, simple as that.

And so we'll see what happens with this video. I'm actually not sure what mood I'm going to be in. So we'll see how it goes.

And yeah, well, we'll go from there. By now, everyone in Moscow has responded to this

Kevin DeYoung thing, which is fine. But I did notice too, I did not read the

Doug Wilson article about this yet. As I said, I don't follow Doug all that carefully.

But I did see one quotation come out of it where, you know, Kevin DeYoung is trying to sort of set this up so he doesn't ever have to respond or talk or things like that.

And this is a this is a classic Big Eva move. You know, I'm just going to lob this grenade over there. And and then

I'm going to take the high road. You know what I mean? It's just it's embarrassing. It's ridiculous. It's so typical.

This is Big Eva tactics 101. And I'm for I for one,

I'm grateful for the tactics because I can see them for what they are. And I know that they're losing tactic.

I mean, Kevin DeYoung is going to attract more people to the Moscow mood by doing this kind of thing.

Well, let me say this. He's not going to attract necessarily more of every kind of person.

But men and men are going to be more attractive because they're going to see how wussy what he's doing is the good reverend.

And it is it's it's a total wuss move. It's as simple as that. It's a wuss move.

It's a weasel move. It is a sissy move. And Kevin DeYoung hopefully will reconsider.

I don't think he will, though, because that's who he is. He's Big Eva. This is what he is.

And so he's probably never going to have a conversation or respond or anything like that. And and I for one, the target audience for me and for a lot of my friends are men, you know, non non effeminate men.

And they all see this for what it is. Anyway, let's jump back into it right away. Here's what the reverend says next.

The supposed point of the 2021 video is that we should ignore the world, tell the truth and let the world explode if it wants to.

But that's not what the video communicates in effect, nor what No Quarter November or the focus of Wilson's whole ministry is trying to accomplish.

No Quarter November does not give us a month of posts on the loveliness of Christ or the power of prayer or the finer points of reform, soteriology or the wonders of the cross or the total trustworthiness of the

Bible or the holiness of God or the glorious intricacies of the Trinitarian theology. The month is largely about speaking into a host of hot button cultural issues.

Let me stop there for a second. Again, I just this this is again, this is standard

Big Eve affair where they know the only topics that really we should be focused on. And it's always about this high theology type stuff.

And and it's just so frustrating because, you know, you take these two

No Quarter November videos and then you take in No Quarter November as a whole. The point of No Quarter November is what

Doug Wilson says it is. It's to speak to these cultural issues without nuance, without as much, you know, qualifying things like that.

That's what it is. And that's what Doug Wilson has chosen to make No Quarter November about.

That's what that's what his blog is about in November. Does he not have the ability to make choices for his own blog?

And the thing is, it's like, no, no, you have to choose the things I want you to talk about. No Quarter November should be about the loveliness of Christ.

And it's like people do this to me all the time on my channel. It's like, you should focus on this over here, you know, and it could be anything.

It could be people from the right, from the left of what the real issues are. And it's like, don't I have a do

I have a choice in this or do I have to do things that you say I need to do? You know, I mean, I want to do what

I want to do. Right. And as simple as that, it's like Yukon Cornelius. You eat what you like and I'll eat what

I like. You know what I mean? These cultural issues are relevant. They're relevant and they're relevant to theology.

They're relevant to the Christian life. They're important issues. And quite frankly, they're the issues that regular everyday people face in their regular everyday life all the time.

These are issues that matter to regular people when they're at work and when they're in the town square.

Do people go to town squares anymore? I mean, some people do, you know. These are issues that are important.

So can we choose to make, you know, our blog about a certain thing?

If I decide to have a blog about football and I want to do a YouTube channel about football, is that allowed or no?

Do I have to talk about the finer points of reformed soteriology? Look, nobody's saying that the finer points of reformed soteriology are unimportant.

And again, if you look at Doug Wilson's ministry, this is a comment that I've been receiving a lot privately and also on the

YouTube channel. People are just wondering, why did Kevin DeYoung lie like this? Is it ignorance or is it a lie?

Both of them at this point are sinful because the thing is, he doesn't talk about personal sin.

He doesn't focus on your own personal sin and putting that to death. And I gave you the example last week about that when

I was getting really upset and I had a little bit of rage inside. But lots of people felt the same way and they all use different examples.

Like, yeah, man, the most helpful thing I've ever heard Doug say was about this, about your personal sin, you know, and there's so many examples, endless examples of this in Doug Wilson's ministry and his sermons and the things that he does.

But in November, he chooses to focus on something else. But no, Kevin DeYoung says, no, no, no, no, this has to be about the loveliness of Christ and it can't be about cultural engagement.

And it's like, man, come off it, dude. So you just decide what everyone can do. Everyone has to do the same things that you do, focus on the same things that you would in November?

Obviously not. Obviously not. And so look, you know, if you want to have another conference about some reform doctrine, go write a freaking head.

Nobody's going to care. Nobody is going to say you shouldn't do it. Nobody's going to get upset with you for doing that.

You know, oh, this time we're going to have one on the perseverance of the saints. Okay, great. Do it. Nobody's stopping you.

You know, you're a man of the cloth. Do what you think you need to do. But we could also have conferences about other things, and it's totally legitimate work.

It boggles my mind. But the thing is, you know, again, men who in their everyday lives have to face issues, and yeah, they do care about reform theology, and yes, they do teach their sons.

You know, just this morning, my wife was going over catechism questions with my sons, and so they're learning reform theology because I think it's important.

But, you know, reform theology is not the only thing that's important. It's as simple as that.

It's as simple as that. He says, the month is largely about speaking into a host of hot -button cultural issues.

Yes, the world is extremely flammable these days, but Wilson also enjoys striking a match. When he makes reference to white babies or not having sex with unstable women, he's not trying to douse the cultural fire around us.

He's trying to fan the flames, and usually with swagger and a self -parading gleefulness. Later, he will come back with nuance and qualification once the conflagration, much to his delight, is already out of control.

Wilson excels at the Motte and Bailey approach, making an outrageous statement that fires up the internet, and then when press retreat to a milder version of the same statement, all without giving up the original statement.

Listen, Kevin, you might not know this, but A .D. Robles invented the Motte and Bailey fallacy.

He's the one who coined the term, of course. And if you don't get the joke, that's okay.

I refuse to explain it. That's not exactly the Motte and Bailey, you know what

I mean? The Motte and Bailey is a little different than that, because what Doug does is that he'll say something, you know, in certain words that he knows are going to trigger people.

Jesus did this, too. He said things in certain words that he knew would trigger people. He knew going in, it would trigger people, so he chose the words that he knew going in would trigger people.

But then you can also say it in a way that's just very simple and less triggering, but it's the same thing.

And so, you know, you can say something like, man, you know, there's a lot of sodomites everywhere. That's going to trigger people.

And you can say, well, why do you have to say it that way? Well, you know, because I wanted to get people's attention, you know what I mean? That's the thing, too.

You know, saying things in a certain way, in an inflammatory way, can be an effective tool.

You know, I think we all know certain people that, like, they literally always say things in the most inflammatory way possible.

And it kind of loses its power if you always speak that way. But I think that you can deploy an inflammatory term.

You can deploy an inflammatory statement that nobody should be upset about, but they are because of the way you said it.

And then you can, you know, retreat, so to say, into a way that explains it a lot more easily.

And it's like, see, you know, you really shouldn't have been as shocked as possible, like you were, because this is a very basic statement.

And so, you know, not having sex with unstable women, that's not that inflammatory to begin with.

But then when, you know, so people get all upset, oh, how dare you? And then you explain it, you're like, well, yeah, it's obvious.

It's obvious. But only in a freaking messed up, upside down world like ours, would you get all upset in the first place by saying don't have sex with unstable women?

One of the most obvious statements of all time. That's the point. You know, it's supposed to put cold water on you, to wake you up.

Say, guys, this is all fake and gay. We should stop being this way. We should recognize we live in an upside down world.

And so it can be effective. Kevin DeYoung does not approve of the strategy, but it's a strategy that Jesus himself used when he was here on Earth with his disciples.

So, Kevin DeYoung, you know, you might be a very learned man, but, you know,

I'm going to actually follow Jesus's example here. Simple as that. All right. Wilson instructs the viewer that, quote, if it seems like the world's on fire, just keep doing what you're doing, end quote.

But that's not what Wilson's brand is about. His videos are visually and thematically about setting things on fire.

They are about poking people in the eye. I'm all for cultural engagement, even for some of the culture worrying, culture worrying, worrying, rightly understood.

But Wilson's online persona is not about introducing reform creeds and confessions and about explaining the books or about explaining the books of the

Bible or about global mission to the uttermost parts of the Earth or about liturgy, preaching prayer or the ordinary means of grace.

I'm sure Wilson cares about all of these things, but that's not what No Quarter November and his self -promotion trailers are selling.

By and large, it's not what the other 11 months of videos and tweets and memes and blog posts are selling either.

Wilson may be happy warrior, but it's easy to spot his happiness in the war itself. It's easier to spot his happiness in the war itself than the things he claims to be fighting for.

We could do with fewer witticisms front and center and more conspicuous delighting in the sweetness of fellowship with Christ and exulting in the love of God, our

Savior. And if Wilson and Canon Press believe that their bread and butter really is all about the things I listed a few sentences ago, creeds, confessions, the

Bible, missions, and ordinary means of grace, I'd love to see them devote an entire month. Hey, why not a whole year to just those things without any snark, without any sarcasm, without any other trolling of other

Christians? Basically, Kevin DeYoung wants you to be Ned Flanders.

Why not have that? Why do you have to be so snarky? No. In fact, he literally said so in a quotation that you yourself pulled out.

Again, I didn't have to go looking for the quotation. You point it out in this very article. You don't have to do this, but you can if you want to.

You can if you want to. It certainly seems like Reverend Kevin DeYoung is reducing

Doug Wilson's work to his blogs and his

No Quarter November. It's just that and nothing else. That's definitely very cherry picky of you.

And it's also very dishonest, Reverend Kevin DeYoung. I am of the opinion, Reverend, I said that for the sake of this video,

I was going to be very generous with you and just assume you haven't really seen a lot of Doug Wilson content because you wouldn't have said such colossally ridiculous things like you said in this article.

But even if I do that, it's still sinful to do what you've done to reduce

Doug Wilson's contributions to his blog posts and No Quarter November. It's absolutely preposterous,

Kevin, and it's shameful and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's no wonder you want to just lob the grenade and run away like a freaking little baby, because if anyone were to cross examine you, they would see how sinful this article is.

Reverend, this is no bueno. This is no bueno.

All right, back to the article. We must never forget that no matter how important Western civilization may be, we are still sojourners and exiles in the world.

The most important fight is the fight for faith, not the fight for Christendom. The Christian life must be by the theology of the cross, however much we might prefer an ever -present theology of glory.

That means blessings through persecutions, strength through weakness, life through death. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.

If we want God to be unashamed to be called our God, our desire must be for a better country that is a heavenly one.

I'm not going to focus on my theological disagreements with Doug. So here's the grenade, and don't even try to ask me questions.

I'm not going to talk to you. I mean, this is the thing. There's obviously a lot of theological implications here.

Kevin DeYoung has got the lose -down -here theology front and center here, and simply, we just disagree with that.

We disagree with that, and we don't think that that's enough. In fact, of course, we love the theology of the cross, but you see, the thing is, that's not where theology ends, because there's also a resurrection.

Christ is also sitting at the right hand of the Father. Christ actually is the

King, even now, even as we speak now. He's King now. The King has returned.

The King has returned. And that doesn't mean that every enemy has been vanquished completely and totally, and there's no enemies running around out there.

We obviously know that there are, but their days are numbered. Their fate is sealed.

It's as simple as that. So yeah, we're about the theology of the cross. Maybe you should start learning about the theology of the resurrection, and even better, the ascension of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Your theology, Kevin, is incomplete, and because of that, you act like a loser.

Simple as that. All right, next section, the mood is the message.

I don't doubt that many Christians are helped by the resources put out by Wilson and Cannon Press. I have many friends who love

Wilson's stuff on the family, the church, and the classical Christian education. I often agree with what Wilson says, especially when he critiques about our present age.

I may not agree with what Wilson means by Christendom or Christian nationalism, but I too would like to see more Christian influence in our land and a return to many of the ideas and ideals that have made

Western civilization truly great. If you are a mature, grounded Christian in a good church with a good sense of discernment, you can find a number of helpful things from the world of Moscow.

But there's a difference between snacking on Moscow once you're already full of good Christian discipline, discipleship, and feasting on Moscow for three square meals a day.

I'm sure he does fear. Kevin DeYoung's life is a life of fear, just like the rest of Big Eva.

I fear that much of Moscow's appeal is an appeal to what is worldly in us. And we've seen that the mood is often irreverent, rebellious, and full of devil -may -care playground taunts that doesn't make us better Christians.

It's impossible for me not to read this without that voice. The well -worn critique of the seeker -sensitive movement is apt for the

Moscow mood as well. What you win them with is what you win them to. 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 drinking down of liberal tears.

Pugnacity and jocularity are not the occasional and unfortunate byproducts of the brand. They are the brand.

And effeminate, limp -wristed, loser, girly, wussy, sissy, weasel tactics are the brand of Big Eva.

And you are full -fledged member, reverend. But here's the thing though, because while I do think that you're acting like a little girl here, and that's definitely not something anyone should emulate,

I still do think that the scholarly, you know, not, you know, pugnacious,

I guess, or fighting, you know, stance that you sometimes take, that's not effeminate. That's not effeminate.

That is something that you can emulate. That brand is good. That brand is okay. You know, the part about, you know, maybe not using pejoratives and not going full bore, whole hog, no holds barred, like that is a good, legitimate style.

And we need that because there are some people that hear that. But Kevin, what

I think you always fail to see, you and all of your buddies, what they always fail to see is that that approach does not reach everybody.

And it's not the only Christian approach. I mean, there are so many examples from the

Scriptures that we could use. My favorite, as I always say, is Ezra and Nehemiah, right? Ezra and Nehemiah.

We needed Ezra, we needed Nehemiah. But there are so many examples that we could pull from the

Scripture about people getting the slap in the face to wake up. The slap in the face, rhetorically speaking, to wake up, and that approach reaches people too.

And you should be rejoicing in that. You should be rejoicing in that instead of getting your little panties in a little bunch about how it's too mean.

Simple as that. Simple as that. Even more troubling is

Wilson's deliberate decision to use uncouth at best and sinful at worst language, especially language of a sexual nature.

His own denomination has criticized his unnecessarily provocative language, including phrases like small -breasted biddies, lumberjack dykes, and other times he's used without the asterisks

I've inserted. Words like, hey guys, guess what? I'm just going to say them, so if you've got kids that you don't want to hear this language because I can understand children not being ready to hear this kind of language, this is me, not the article,

I can certainly understand that. But here's the thing, these words, they're not magic.

They're not. We're all adults here. You can just say them.

You can just say them. Ready, Kevin? Plug your ears, buddy. Plug your ears, reverend.

At other times he's used without the asterisks, I've warned you guys, at other times he's used without the asterisks

I've inserted, words like dick, cuck, cunt, and boobs.

Is that and? No, that can't be and. Ass, boobs, also here, here, here, and here.

Tits, bitch, also here, here. Gaytards, faggot, fudge packers for male sex, and circle jerks, a term

I had to look up but wish I hadn't. Can you imagine?

Can you imagine Kevin DeYoung?

He's got his button down shirt buttoned all the way to the top. He's got his sweater vest on.

Nothing wrong with sweater vests. He's got his, you know, he looks like Seinfeld.

And he's like, hmm, circle jerks, hmm. I wonder what that means.

He googles it. Can you imagine what came up when he googled circle jerk?

I just, I could see, I could just see his, the horror, the absolute horror in his face.

Just, what? His head just explodes. He passes out. He wakes up and he's just like, whoa.

What happened? He looks at a screen and there's the circle jerk. That is quite an image.

Kevin DeYoung googling circle jerk. I hope he didn't google image that.

I really hope he didn't google image that. Circle jerk, a term

I had to look up but wish I hadn't. To my knowledge, Wilson has not expressed regret or repentance for this language.

To the contrary, he's often defended its use. Yeah, I mean, this is the thing, like, Doug Wilson, a lot of people talk, ask me about this too, about his use of different language and stuff like that.

You know, I'm 41 years old, you know, I mean, I've heard it all at this point. I've heard it all, and unfortunately

I've seen a lot too. And, you know, I often say, you know,

I wouldn't have said that. I don't use these words in my life typically, you know what I mean? I mean, maybe some of them.

But I don't use these words, you know, I don't use the word dick or cunt or things like that in my normal life.

It's as simple as that. And I highly doubt, I don't know the man that well,

I highly doubt Doug does either. Just a theory, you know what I mean? But, again, they're not magic words.

These aren't magic words that if you say them, you're automatically unclean. These are words that can be used appropriately.

Again, this is not how I operate. I don't work this way. I don't use these kinds of words.

There are lots of words that friends of mine use that I don't, I don't use the word boomer typically. And I've used it before, and I've used it out of context, of course.

But I don't like that word. I think it's a little dismissive of our elders. So I don't like that word. I don't use it.

But does that mean that everyone who uses that word uses it in a sinful way?

No, it does not. Obviously it doesn't mean that. We're adults here. We're freaking adults,

Kevin. My goodness gracious. It's just like, it's just, it's just all so childish, really.

It's all so childish. Ooh, did you hear what he said? He said tits. Ooh. It's just ridiculous.

Kevin Young comes across as a hall monitor here. It's pathetic. Pathetic is what it is. To my knowledge,

Wilson's not expressed regret or repentance for this language. To the contrary, he's often defended its use. Were I to use words like these words in public or private,

I would be quickly confronted by my elders and likely brought for my, before my presbytery for questioning.

If I persisted, I would probably be deposed as a minister and rightfully so. For such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and cruel, crude joking.

Which of the Puritans or Southern Presbyterians for that matter would have dared to speak this way? What candidate coming forward for ordination could get away with writing in this way?

What parent would be thrilled if their daughter's new boyfriend sprinkled his vocabulary with words like these? If such prophetic language is justified for the minister when he is attacking a godless culture, is not, is the language therefore appropriate for the pulpit?

According to Wilson's logic, I don't see why not. And should we hope to see more pastors employ these terms? Would that be a step towards the saving of Christendom for Christian ministers to talk more frequently about boobs and tits?

In this, this is the other thing too. Like, what is this? Did I say this already? I might've said this already, but I've talked to someone about this recently.

What is the point of these asterisks, right? It's like everybody knows the words you're saying and you're putting these asterisks as if the asterisks is a magic thing that makes you having not said it.

You still said the word, Kevin, you said dick, cuck, and cunt. You put the asterisks there to somehow cleanse you.

Like what could be, could there be anything more pharisaical than this? This is akin to the, the, the, the, the

Jews who on, who allegedly claimed to do the Sabbath and they, they put these like weird contraptions in their house so that they don't have to do the work of flicking the light switch, but they could still turn on the light switch.

It's just unbelievably pathetic. It's as if God is somehow tricked by the fact that you installed this stupid thing so you don't have to work, but you could still do everything you want to do.

God's not tricked by that. It's just like that stupid pharisaical way to trick God. You know what

I mean? And this is, and Judaism is rampant with this. The Jews do this all the time. They have these little strategies to try to trick

God into, into thinking you're actually obeying him when you're obviously not obeying him. So if the words dick, cuck, and cunt are evil to say, and they make you unclean, and you would be deposed as a minister for saying them, you should be deposed right now because you just said all of those words in your stupid article.

But you put the asterisks because you, I guess you think that tricks people, that tricks the Lord. You just said cunt.

You just said it. It really,

I mean, I think, look, everything's pharisaical. I get it. But this is, this is pharisaical.

This is the, the prototype of being a Pharisee. It's, it's stuff like this. This is what they used to do.

He said gay tards and fudge packers, and he didn't even, he didn't even asterisk those or circle jerks.

Wow. I mean, he said those completely. I mean, let's bring him up on charges. Can some of my PCA friends bring this guy up on charges because he said fudge packers and he didn't put the asterisks?

That was an oversight, Kevin. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

This is so stupid. This is so stupid.

Kevin, this is stupid. You're not stupid. Why are you acting so stupid?

I don't know if I can continue. I still, I'm just still thinking about Kevin DeYoung, Reverend Kevin DeYoung, Googling circle jerk.

In his influential 13th century manual on the training of knights, Raymond Lowell insisted that courteous and chivalry belonged to, courtesy and chivalry belong together for the baseness of uncouth words that are contrary to chivalry.

Okay. I remember this one.

Wilson has frequently compared PCA study committees to a quote, stacked blonde in a tight dress.

Also here and here. Once he wrote that a committee was quote as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants.

That's a good one. That's a good one. That's a good one. It's stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants.

There is no excuse for this language to be sure the prophet Ezekiel could use extreme language in extreme situations to show the ugliness.

His people just don't get it. They simply did. They think they're nicer than the Lord. They think they're nicer than Jesus, nicer than Yahweh, nicer than Jehovah, nicer than whatever name of the

Lord you want to use. They think they're nicer than God. They're better than God because he's, he's saying right here that Ezekiel use language like this.

It was in extreme situations to show the ugliness of extreme wickedness. Like getting a study committee of confessionally reformed denomination to Dolly Parton's anatomy is none of those things.

It's juvenile, sensuous, and entirely without biblical warrant. This isn't using graphic language to highlight the horror or sin.

It's a bawdy way to make fun of a group of orthodox churchmen with whom Wilson disagrees.

Wilson likes to emphasize that as Christ of Lord, he must be Lord of all. Yes and amen, but all means our hearts and minds and our typing fingers.

This is the point. You disagree with Wilson on your study committees, but Wilson happens to think that your study committees are illegitimate and wicked often.

And I agree. I agree. It reminds me of the SPC. You know, we got, we got to study what about the, what is a pastor?

What is a pastor here in 2023? They're studying what is a pastor? And the only reason they're doing it is to allow for women pastors because everybody knows what a pastor is.

So it's a wicked study committee. He's not saying it's wicked to study the scriptures. He's saying it's wicked to do this fake and gay stacked study committee.

And he uses Dolly Parton as a, as a punchline because very similar to Dolly Parton.

She is fake. They're fake. They are fake.

And not only are they fake, but everybody knows they're fake. She's not hiding it.

She's not hiding it. They're fake. They're artificial and everybody knows it. So you might not agree with Wilson that your study committees, at least the ones he's talking about here are fake and everybody knows it.

But that is the point he's making. It's extremely fake and it's wicked.

It's wicked to do what the SPC did. I don't know what study committees he's talking about here, so I can't speak intelligently about them, but the,

I can use the SPC study committee because I know exactly what that's about. And every freaking SPC member worth their salt knows exactly what that's about.

Those study committees are fake. They're, they're fake. They're as fake as Dolly Parton's breasts and everybody knows it.

It's artificial. It's artificial and it's evil.

And so Ezekiel was using extreme language to explain extreme situations and extreme evil.

I have a feeling that's what Doug thinks he's doing. And you don't agree with that.

That's totally fine, but come off of it. Come off of it. Anyway, we've been at this for 33 minutes.

We're going to stop there and we will continue. I don't know what we do. Probably only one more.

We probably won't get to eight parts in this one, but I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.