(p 3) The DeYoung Demeanor v The Moscow Mood
…for the equipping of the saints
for the work of service
Ephesians 4:12
In parts 1 and 2, I made the case that in all the back and forth over the DeYoung and Wilson article, everyone seemed to be missing the elephant in the room.
I identified that elephant as, the massive vacuum that exists today.
The vacuum is the reality that the big evangelical platforms simply haven’t kept up with addressing the numerous, pressing, very-new-to-us issues that Christians are facing today.
I gave a list of items that have come to dominate public discourse in the last 5-10 years, but especially in the last 5, and which every person is having to deal with. Many of these items have massive, life-long implications and ramifications, and it’s almost impossible to find anyone that hasn’t been impacted by several of these issues.
Just a few for example:
Unprecedented numbers of people relocating their families across the country for various strategic reasons.
Covid overreach.
Increasing revelations of the cesspool that is public education, and the massive shift in schooling plans (ie homeschooling, etc)
Children being exposed to trans mania, against the backdrop of children being taken from their homes to be mutilated.
Job loss over jabs.
Working from home.
Unsustainable cost of living increases
AI
Transhumanism
The Great Reset and The Great Replacement
Porn
Decriminalization of crime..
Race baiting
DEI/CRT, which is having massive implications for how the world now operates.
These issues have exploded, sending shrapnel ripping through innumerable families. And that is, in part, why the vacuum is so bad.
The fact that there is even discussion that needs to be had about attending a gay or trans wedding, is incredibly revealing. I mean, we’re asking some pretty basic stuff here…
What is slowly being revealed is that there are 2 radically different approaches to life and ministry in “Negative World.”
These 2 approaches stand as two bookends, with a broad spectrum running between them.
Kevin has given us his summary of the Moscow Mood:
“In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood. It’s a mood that says, ‘We are not giving up, and we are not giving in. We can do better than negotiate the terms of our surrender. The infidels have taken over our Christian laws, our Christian heritage, and our Christian lands, and we are coming to take them back.’”
DeYoung and others are placing their crosshairs on the “how.” That’s why he calls it a “mood.”
He is critiquing tone, word choice, and posture. And there is a place for that.
But the real disagreement is much more fundamental and foundational. It is not how, but what.
This “mood” is ultimately a philosophy of ministry. This is a discussion of what ministry will entail, and what it will not.
What (or which) matters will we address?
What (or which) matters will we acknowledge?
What (or which) matters need to be addressed pastorally and theologically?
While DeYoung is pointing to the “how,” how do we speak, how do we conduct ourselves, the real fundamental disagreement here is ultimately a “scope of ministry” debate.
This is a philosophy of ministry debate.
DeYoung takes the left end of the spectrum.
Wilson takes the right.
We understand very clearly both the “what,” and the “how,” of Wilson.
Having spent enough time focusing on Wilson’s M.O., it’s time to look more closely at DeYoung’s.
To do so, we need to go no further than his TGC (yep) blog post from 2020.
You’ve already seen my comments at the top of the blog, from when I first shared DeYoung’s article back in 2020, and so I confess to poisoning the well. But if you’ve made it through parts 1 and 2 of this series, then you already knew my position anyway… So without further ado, take a read through Kevin’s own explanation of pastoral ministry. And maybe in the next post, we’ll look at his tone and posture, his “mood.”