Words Matter: Making Sense of the Moscow Mood

When I was growing up, in overtly Arminian circles, I was warned, again and again, to
stay away from guys like John Calvin. Calvin was the devil given human form, and his writings
were strictly off limits. Guys like John MacArthur and John Piper also enjoyed such exalted, yet
forbidden, status in these churches. They were strictly off-limits—even MacArthur’s so-called
leaky dispensationalism was anathema to these folks.
So, I did what any kid would do: I found whatever writings of Calvin’s I could and read
them. I devoured the sermon series of John MacArthur and John Piper, soon discovering other
theologians like R.C. Sproul along the way. What I discovered was that Calvin and these other
men offered me something the Arminian churches we joined could never dream of: Theological
and biblical consistency. What I had discovered was Reformed Theology, and I absolutely loved
how biblical truths were expressed as biblical doctrines that could then be theologically applied
to life in consistent manner.

When I got older, and some other people began warning me to stay away from Doug
Wilson, I had to find out for myself what the man had to offer. After all, the dangerous men I had
been warned of in the past proved to be incredibly dangerous to flimsy and inconsistent
theological systems. What would I discover, then, in Wilson? So, I picked up How To Exasperate
Your Wife and was immediately hooked. I couldn’t yet quite understand why he was considered
so dangerous in the eyes of some, but I decided I’d read more. When I realized he too was
postmil, that only sweetened the deal. I had found a man of wisdom, integrity, and, best of all,
theological consistency.
Over the years, I’ve watched Wilson get attacked from many corners. Most recent in the
long list of penned assaults has been the essay prepared by Kevin DeYoung and directed towards
Wilson regarding what he has referred to as the Moscow Mood.
In his essay, DeYoung tries to put his finger on the pulse of Wilson and Canon Press and
Moscow’s almost magnetic attraction for many today and says:

I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual. That’s not meant
to be a knock on the smart people in Moscow or attracted to Moscow. It is to say,
however, that people are not mainly moving to Idaho because they now understand
Revelation 20 in a different way, or because they did a deep word study on ta ethne in the
Great Commission, or even because of a well-thought-out political philosophy of
Christian Nationalism. Those things matter to Wilson and his followers, but I believe
postmillennialism and Christian Nationalism are lagging indicators, not leading
indicators. That is, people come to those particular intellectual convictions because they
were first attracted to the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so
skillfully embodies. 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.”

This is, I think, a fair assessment. Though DeYoung doesn’t use this language himself, the appeal
and attraction of Moscow is not purely intellectual, but practical. That is to say, the intellectual
theology finds a practical output in what’s happening over there, and evangelicals are seeing it
and saying, “There’s a consistency there, between Word and Deed, that I really like and want to
be a part of.” Rightfully so.

Well, Who Asked You, Anyway?

Look, what Jacob Tanner has to say on the matter may not matter to most. But, as
someone who works with and loves the brothers over at G3, has genuinely benefited from many
of Kevin DeYoung’s works and finds him to be a great theological teacher, but who also signed
up with Canon+ for Wilson’s content day one, and would love to work with the brothers over at
Canon Press (seriously, brothers, reach out to me), I feel like I’m caught in the middle of siblings
fighting. G3 has been mentioned a few times – first by Wilson in his No Quarter November
video, then by DeYoung, and then by Wilson again. Though I’m not one of the staff over at G3, I
am an author and regular contributor, which means I’m part of the extended G3 family. I don’t
agree with everything that everyone at G3 says and does, anymore than I agree with everything
Wilson says and does, anymore than I agree with everything DeYoung says and does. I also don’t
think that G3 needs me to come to their defense.
I can’t help but notice, though, that some of my associations with various ministries, like
G3, make it so I take strays, both of the intentional and unintentional variety. So, while I may not
have a known name, as my elder brothers of the faith like DeYoung and Wilson, I might as well
take this opportunity to do what any little brother learns to do when he’s a boy – come out
swinging.
Swinging at what, though? I don’t want to shadow box over here. I need a worthy target.
So, I’m not really intending for this to speak to DeYoung or Wilson, though it would be great if it
reached them. I doubt very much, though, that either man cares a great deal or will lose much
sleep over what Jacob Tanner thinks or says. I’m directing this more towards those of us lesser-
known Christians who, for lack of a better word, feel a bit caught up as bystanders between the
battle of a King Kong and Godzilla. Why’s this fight happening, whose side should we be on,
why are we even choosing sides anyway, and how do we get on the same page before the entire
city is destroyed and Mothra rises from the ash heap to consume us all?

The Moscow Mood’s Consistency

I’ve already mentioned the theological, intellectual, and practical consistency of Moscow
a number of times so far, but allow me to point this out once more.
DeYoung acknowledged, in our earlier quote, that it isn’t intellectual ideas that attract
people to Wilson, but it is the basic cultural distinctions that have obviously developed as a direct
implication of that particular brand of theology being applied to all areas of life. Wilson, in his
response to DeYoung, wrote—in basic agreement, here—that no one is moving to Moscow and joining Christ Church because of postmillenialism, covenantalism, patriarchy, or so forth. They
come for one thing, sure, but ultimately stay for the other things. Though he doesn’t say it
outright, he puts his finger directly on the pulse of the Moscow mood: Consistency.

What Moscow offers is a practical theology that is entirely consistent within itself. It
doesn’t say one thing and then do another. It says what it believes and then acts out those beliefs
in perfectly consistent ways.
Christians, for the past century at least, have been sold an internally inconsistent brand of
Christianity – the sort of Christianity that says, “Christ is Lord!” But, in the very next breath,
quietly whispers, “Retreat before the culture infiltrates our ranks!” It’s the sort of inconsistency
that belabors the point all speech should be holy and commendable, but then praises liberal
propaganda, like the Barbie movie, for supposed “gospel insights” with the use of some of the
most amazing mental gymnastics this side of the Olympics.

This is, for example, is one major issue with arminianism, for it is, by and far,
inconsistent. It claims to worship a Triune and Sovereign God, but then proclaims a truncated
and, dare I say, sissified gospel, wherein Jesus is standing at the door of everyone’s heart,
knocking ever so gently, just waiting to be invited in. What kind of sovereign God is this? The
God who created the Heavens and earth, who crushes Satan beneath His feet, who conquered
death itself, who cast Adam and Eve from the Garden when they sinned, is unable to open the
“door” of someone’s heart? This is terribly inconsistent.
Or, consider certain churches and parachurch ministries—typically, the most
respected—and we’re taught simultaneously that Christ is Lord of all, yet the church’s defeat is
so certain that cultural retreat is the only viable option. This is, again, an inconsistent
eschatology. How can Christ simultaneously be Lord, yet permit the defeat of His people?
Pilgrim and outcast eschatology carry a certain degree of humility and respectability, but it’s
piousness is, ultimately, inconsistent with the Sovereign God it claims to worship.

So, listen to the inconsistency when DeYoung says,
We must never forget that no matter how important Western civilization may be, we are
still sojourners and exiles in the world (1 Pet. 2:11). The most important fight is the fight
for faith, not the fight for Christendom. The Christian life must be shaped by the theology
of the cross, however much we might prefer an ever-present theology of glory. That
means blessing through persecution, strength through weakness, and life through death.
“For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14). 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 (Heb. 11:16).

This is a pessimistic view of the future that is, largely, inconsistent with the Word of God. It isn’t
that DeYoung is flat-out wrong; he’s actually completely right, for the most part—though I think
a strong case can be made that the fight for the faith is the fight for Christendom, because to see
others saved and brought into God’s Kingdom is to see the Kingdom of God advance over the
earth and, thus, to see Christendom advance too—but, DeYoung would have us march for the sovereign God, right into Heaven, with no care for this earthly realm. That is not, however, the
point of 1 Peter 2:11, Hebrews 13:14, or Hebrews 11:16. Any Postmillienialist worth their salt
knows these texts exceptionally well and can biblically exegete them in—wait for it—consistent
ways. When the Bible calls us pilgrims, sojourners, and those who are persecuted, we know this
is because Christ is reigning until all things are placed beneath His feet. We know this is because
we are ambassador’s for Christ’s Kingdom, proclaiming the Kingly summons to repent and
believe the gospel. We know that this is because, ultimately, we are not yet living on an earth that
has been redeemed, made new, and is now physically indwelt by the presence of our God and
King. We’re not yet in our resurrected bodies because the second coming has not yet taken place.
But, until then, we are warriors in Christ’s Kingdom, sweeping over this earth in victorious
triumph!

So, what Wilson does is take a take an eschatology of victory, rather than defeat, and
applies it consistently. You don’t even have to agree with him on every point- I doubt he’d want
you to. He’s not perfect, neither is DeYoung, neither am I, neither are you… but, Wilson is, as far
as I can tell, consistent in word and deed. And, in most cases, this is the number one thing we
need in Christian men today – Consistency.
This is, I believe, one of the major attractions of postmillennialism – it takes, and
synthetizes biblical texts like the Great Commission, where Jesus says to go and disciple the
nations, and says, “Alright, let’s get to work.” It believes that Christ will be victorious, and so
goes forth to be victorious. Moscow embodies this postmillennial vision by believing the victory
of Christ is so secure, and that the world will be conquered by the church being used as a
battering ram in the arms of the Lord, that it goes forth to do just that.

When Wilson says Christ is Lord, and he’s going to live with the mantra, “All of Christ
for all of life,” he then follows through. This is a man who isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty, to
have puritanical rocks pitched at his head, or to actually busy himself with the work the Lord. He
takes shots at Disney, Target, and woke politicians, and then helps develop content for Canon
Plus to develop a godly and Christian alternative, wherein families are trained in the manner of
Christian living, so they can go forth and conquer the world for Christ.
That’s consistent. If Christ is Lord, He must be Lord of all, and the Moscow Mood is
applied consistency of the Lordship of Christ.

Modern Evangelicalism’s Fearful Respectability

DeYoung’s essay is demonstrating the inconsistency of his pessimistic eschatology, while
also calling out Wilson for what he perceives to be the biggest problem with the Moscow Mood:
The words Wilson uses, especially of the stronger variety. What makes this inconsistent? Well,
while he may besmirch Wilson for smoking cigars and utilizing strong language with a serrated
edge, he sits on the board of The Gospel Coalition and remains silent while TGC writers
compare Taylor Swift to Jesus Christ, search for traces of the gospel in borderline pornographic
smut, and promote a feminized Christianity that has more in common with grandma’s rotary club
than the actual Kingdom of God, all in the name of respectability.

That’s the key, here, of course. Respectability, even if it’s at the expense of consistency.
So, Christ is Lord of all in this system, as long as we allow Him to be Lord; and, by we, what we
really mean is the culture. And, that’s the problem: Respectability at the expense of logical
consistency in doctrine and practice has grown tiresome for many. What use is respectability if
Disney is cuckholding dads, Target is belittling moms, and everyone’s trying to take our kids,
while the cool kids of evangelicalism happily nod their empty heads to Taylor Swift and blog
about the value of Barbie in the fight against toxic masculinity?

I’m not suggesting that I think Wilson is justified in everything he says. I think he’s a
sinner saved by grace, just like the rest of those in Christendom. But, I still think he’s far more
consistent than DeYoung here, and when it comes to raising two boys of my own, I can say with
all seriousness that I’ll buy them each every book Wilson has ever penned before I suggest a
single article from TGC. So, here’s one way DeYoung’s argument could be taken more seriously:
Fire the dude comparing Taylor Swift to Jesus Christ, delete the dumb movie reviews looking for
gospel light in caves of darkness, and post articles from consistently reformed and courageous
men.

The Culture Is at Stake

Remember that scene from Lord of the Rings when Boromir, tempted by the ring, tries to
steal it away from Frodo? Boromir’s lusts and misguided vision put the entire fellowship at
jeopardy as orcs descend on the group, forcing their separation. (Yes, I’m comparing DeYoung
with Boromir and Wilson with Frodo – bear with me, here). We’re in a similar situation now.
DeYoung is on our side, but he’s being shortsighted with his quips against Wilson. There’s
bigger fish to fry, and a common enemy to us all. Rather than searching for areas of
disagreement, how about we recognize the elephant in the room before it starts stomping on us
all?
That elephant, of course, is the culture. And it has been corrupted by sin because a
generation of Christians were content to sit around, twiddle their thumbs, and sing “Kum-bye-
ah,” waiting for Christ to return and rescue them from a burning world. What we should’ve been
doing was fighting—whether you call it fighting for the faith, fighting for the gospel, or fighting
for Christendom, I really don’t care. It’s all the same thing.
Others have already pointed out the short-sighted hypocrisy of DeYoung in calling out
Wilson’s mood and language while remaining silent about TGC affairs. I already mentioned it,
too. So, instead, I’ll merely say this: The orcs are descending on our camp, and the Fellowship is
a whole lot stronger when it fights together, rather than apart.
At the same time, if the Moscow Mood’s consistency, with its emphasis on things like
proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all spheres of life, conquering culture for Christ,
and raising godly families, isn’t considered respectable… well, then, we ought to let such notions
of respectability be damned to hell where they belong.