Anthony Bradley writes about Douglas Wilson:
In February 2026, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth extended an invitation to Moscow, Idaho pastor Doug Wilson to lead a Christian prayer service at the Pentagon. The invitation generated immediate and considerable national attention: not least because Wilson has, over the course of several decades, developed a political theology that critics characterize as Christian nationalism, and that Wilson himself frames in terms of restoring a distinctly Christian social order in the United States. What followed was a familiar pattern: outrage, disavowal, and, from many quarters of American evangelicalism, apparent surprise.
That surprise is worth interrogating. Doug Wilson did not become controversial in the winter of 2026. His ideas have been publicly articulated, widely disseminated, and institutionally endorsed (implicitly and explicitly) for the better part of thirty years. The consternation that erupted in response to the Pentagon prayer invitation tells us less about Wilson than it does about the selective amnesia of evangelical institutions and the audiences they have shaped.
The urgent question raised by this episode is not why Wilson holds the theological and political commitments he holds. The urgent question is how he became sufficiently influential within the architecture of American evangelicalism that such an invitation was conceivable in the first place. The answer implicates not only Wilson but the institutions that amplified his voice, defended his orthodoxy, and granted him platforms before their most consequential audiences.
Bradley’s article is worth a read and I’m inclined to agree with his thesis. Wilson was brought into the fold and given a platform as indeed have been the ideas of the Federal Vision movement not just in relation to Wilson but a number of other thought leaders over that time. There may have been good hearted reasons for this. I think for some, there was a kind of “generous orthodoxy”, a belief that we wanted to not over narrow the boundaries of who we learnt from. For some, this will have meant that they believed Wilson and Federal Vision had some good things to offer, a baby not to be lost with the bathwater. For others, it may have been more personal. They might not have given much time to many of the ideas but they saw in Wilson and others men who were brothers in Christ, who advocated for the core tenants of reformed theology and seemed to be gifted thinkers and communicators. The hope was that by bringing them inside the tent, it would be possible to rescue them from their worst excesses. Certainly this seemed to be the intent among some with Mark Driscoll.
Mentioning Driscoll reminds us that Wilson is not the first example. This is at the heart of what I would add to Bradley’s comments. We have seen time and time again how different concerning elements have been allowed to build their platforms under the cover of Evangelicalism and especially reformed evangelicalism.[1] Here I would highlight the way that two movements that have been concerning me have been given platforms through opportunities to speak and to write. These are the Bethel Movement and Christian Nationalism.
I think there are two key lessons to draw here. First that there is a need for confessional boundaries. In some contexts, this is unpopular. We often hear it said that we want to be those who focus on keeping Jesus central rather than policing doctrinal boundaries. Yet, those boundaries matter when things become subjective and personal. It’s not about whether I trust your judgement on someone, it’s whether objectively what they say aligns with what we believe and value.
Secondly, simply having those confessional boundaries may not be enough. After all, Wilson and others have been able to get through the boundaries and no doubt would argue that they can sign up to doctrinal or creedal statements. So, we need to be thinking about how we review confessions to ensure they are as robust and watertight as possible. We also need to make sure we don’t just treat them as a checklist to sign off on but as a helpful guide for making assessments.
Finally, we need humble transparency. We need to be willing to put our hand up when we get the assessment wrong.
[1] I say “especially” not because it is unique to the Reformed but because this is my tribe and so of first priority to me.
Faithroots 