What do you think?
Rate this book
A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking
Satire is a kind of preaching. Satire pervades Scripture. Satire treats the foibles of sinners with a less than perfect tenderness. But, if a Christian employs satire today, he is almost immediately called to account for his "unbiblical" behavior. Yet Scripture shows that the central point of some religious controversies is to give offense. When Christ was confronted with ecclesiastical obstinacy and other forms of arrogance, he showed us a godly pattern for giving offense.In every controversy, godliness and wisdom (or the lack of them) are to be determined by careful appeal to the Scriptures and not to the fact of someone having taken offense. Perhaps they ought to have taken offense, and perhaps someone ought to have endeavored to give it.
128 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 2003
104 people are currently reading
455 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
302 books4,606 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews
January 29, 2026
Apparently a response to criticism over several years, this book defends the use of satire (both Horatian and Juvinalian) by Christians toward others (including other Christians). I was completely convinced. John Frame was not, though he has high regard for Wilson. Wilson defends himself here, and he simply strengthens his already strong case. Read a related interview here. I refer to the book here.
In 2025, Gavin Ortlund posted a video about Christians and profanity. Joe Rigney had some objections, so Gavin had Joe on the show and posted the debate (video notes include links to the 2023 back and forth between Burk and Wilson). Here's another 2025 comment.
This book remains one of my favorites, not because I am eager to make fun of people, but because it demonstrates a responsible method of reading.
If I recall correctly, this book explains the difference between four kinds of bad words: swearing, cursing, obscenity, and vulgarity. (And if it doesn't, Veith does in Reading Between the Lines, ch. 2.) See here for a related conversation (blog post in question; earlier post). See here for Wilson on "winsome tartness." Here Wilson debates Marlin Detweiler, who has concerns with Wilson's tone. See my related Twitter thread on the topic here.
Related: John Cleese claims that all humor is critical, and some people ought to be criticized. In fact, all people need to be criticized at some point—critical humor helps us keep a sense of proportion (we are not the biggest or best).
As a side note: I put smiley faces next to parts in the book that I think are funny. I put at least 60 smiley faces in this book. There are 125 pages.
Available on Audible.
Some related posts:
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-...
- http://www.credenda.org/index.php/The...
- https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-...
- https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
- https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
- Some of this stuff is on audio too.
Ben Zornes provides a review and some praise.
In 2025, Gavin Ortlund posted a video about Christians and profanity. Joe Rigney had some objections, so Gavin had Joe on the show and posted the debate (video notes include links to the 2023 back and forth between Burk and Wilson). Here's another 2025 comment.
This book remains one of my favorites, not because I am eager to make fun of people, but because it demonstrates a responsible method of reading.
If I recall correctly, this book explains the difference between four kinds of bad words: swearing, cursing, obscenity, and vulgarity. (And if it doesn't, Veith does in Reading Between the Lines, ch. 2.) See here for a related conversation (blog post in question; earlier post). See here for Wilson on "winsome tartness." Here Wilson debates Marlin Detweiler, who has concerns with Wilson's tone. See my related Twitter thread on the topic here.
Related: John Cleese claims that all humor is critical, and some people ought to be criticized. In fact, all people need to be criticized at some point—critical humor helps us keep a sense of proportion (we are not the biggest or best).
As a side note: I put smiley faces next to parts in the book that I think are funny. I put at least 60 smiley faces in this book. There are 125 pages.
Available on Audible.
Some related posts:
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-c...
- https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-...
- http://www.credenda.org/index.php/The...
- https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-...
- https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
- https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...
- Some of this stuff is on audio too.
Ben Zornes provides a review and some praise.
December 8, 2023
Another reminder that 3 stars = "I Liked It" .... lol. That was a very non Wilson-like qualifier there.
This book is very eye opening to the prevalence of satire within God's Word. Far more than just "that one story with Elijah and the prophets of Baal", Wilson methodically walks through a ton of Scriptural examples of satiric bite both Old and New Testaments. I believe it is worthwhile to consider the presence of satire in words of, say, Jesus and the apostle Paul...and come to grips with why one would NEVER look to emulate it in ANY way. After all, we look to emulate the other communicable attributes of Jesus and certainly Paul himself calls us to imitate him as he does Christ.
In my own case, I find myself impacted by the position Wilson takes in this book, though in the end still holding back from embracing the full extent. I have found this book to strengthen my convictions when it comes to standing firm on essential principles of the faith, and I appreciated Wilson's closing exhortations that the use of Biblical satire be implemented thru wisdom and spiritual maturity...and rarely as a first resort.
This book is very eye opening to the prevalence of satire within God's Word. Far more than just "that one story with Elijah and the prophets of Baal", Wilson methodically walks through a ton of Scriptural examples of satiric bite both Old and New Testaments. I believe it is worthwhile to consider the presence of satire in words of, say, Jesus and the apostle Paul...and come to grips with why one would NEVER look to emulate it in ANY way. After all, we look to emulate the other communicable attributes of Jesus and certainly Paul himself calls us to imitate him as he does Christ.
In my own case, I find myself impacted by the position Wilson takes in this book, though in the end still holding back from embracing the full extent. I have found this book to strengthen my convictions when it comes to standing firm on essential principles of the faith, and I appreciated Wilson's closing exhortations that the use of Biblical satire be implemented thru wisdom and spiritual maturity...and rarely as a first resort.
September 18, 2022
This is a defense of the use of sarcasm in Christian discourse. As one who appreciates well crafted sarcasm and who tries his best to be a decent practitioner, this short book was well received.
January 29, 2016
I'm grateful for mentors like Doug Wilson, who challenge me to think biblically, write winsomely, and stand for truth unflinchingly. I've been convinced for several years now that one of the most lacking things in modern evangelicalism is the gruff voice of the prophet. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, but many of us Christians act more like mice in a library.
In "Serrated Edge", Wilson casts a vision, and provides instruction for using satire in the communication of the Gospel. We ought not to be afraid of godly insults, nor should we equate "being loving" with a "Jane Austen-y" romanticism. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is tell someone they are a "whitewashed tomb". The prophets of old were unafraid to mock heresy, idolatry and the like, Christ was notorious for lambasting the hypocrites, the Apostle's knew how to make their point satirically, and godly men throughout history have been known give some well-placed rhetorical upper-cuts to the heretic's jaw.
I really enjoyed this book, and highly recommend for writers especially.
In "Serrated Edge", Wilson casts a vision, and provides instruction for using satire in the communication of the Gospel. We ought not to be afraid of godly insults, nor should we equate "being loving" with a "Jane Austen-y" romanticism. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is tell someone they are a "whitewashed tomb". The prophets of old were unafraid to mock heresy, idolatry and the like, Christ was notorious for lambasting the hypocrites, the Apostle's knew how to make their point satirically, and godly men throughout history have been known give some well-placed rhetorical upper-cuts to the heretic's jaw.
I really enjoyed this book, and highly recommend for writers especially.
October 6, 2022
Went into this expecting to have critiques, but I have none. It’s incredible that evangelical society has developed a notion of “biblically” appropriate speech that is completely unbiblical. I appreciate that he distinguished the serrated edge as something that only more experienced men should use. Something that ambitious Reformed 20-somethings on facebook could take note of.
October 29, 2021
Fitting for the temptations of the dialectical age we live in.
Really love Wilson’s exposition on Christ and the apostles’ use of Sarcasm. His versions of their statements show just how much punch the originals hold.
This is Wilson at his absolute writing best.
Really love Wilson’s exposition on Christ and the apostles’ use of Sarcasm. His versions of their statements show just how much punch the originals hold.
This is Wilson at his absolute writing best.
November 6, 2023
Excellent. Made me even more convinced of his thesis than I was before, and challenged me personally.
March 23, 2025
In a day and age where Christianity is labeled as an accepting and tolerant religion, where all are welcome as they are, and hard truths about ourselves and our identity are completely absent from the Bible, it is books like this that can work as a sort of antidote.
What’s confusing to many is that those who are most vocal about those ideas are ostensibly from the Christian camp already. It is not uncommon to hear a supposed preacher or pastor push forth a type of Jesus Christ that is not simply meek and mild, but absent from any anger, sass, or “meanness” so-called. But the Bible is chock full of instances where the prophets, the apostles, and of course Jesus Himself use what Wilson calls a serrated edge to convey truths. The serrated edge doesn’t cut clean and it can be painful and uncouth in its application. We see this in how Jesus handles the tax collectors, how Paul speaks about unbelievers and unrepentant believers, or how the prophets talked about the nation of Israel and her enemies.
If your response to some of the things said in Scripture is “well, that was mean.” Then you probably are picking up on the point the authors are making. They aren’t being mean or rude just for the sake of it, they have a category of speech that under certain requisites, demands that sort of speech. And if they have those categories, should we also have those categories today in our conversations and writings today? Wilson argues that we need to have those categories still today, especially if we can distinguish between the sort of proper and improper forms of satire. We can attempt this type of satire and land squarely in the area of ungodly speech if we are not prudent. But to avoid it altogether for the sake of peace and harmony in the world is to abandon what our Scriptural examples teach us.
Worth reading.
What’s confusing to many is that those who are most vocal about those ideas are ostensibly from the Christian camp already. It is not uncommon to hear a supposed preacher or pastor push forth a type of Jesus Christ that is not simply meek and mild, but absent from any anger, sass, or “meanness” so-called. But the Bible is chock full of instances where the prophets, the apostles, and of course Jesus Himself use what Wilson calls a serrated edge to convey truths. The serrated edge doesn’t cut clean and it can be painful and uncouth in its application. We see this in how Jesus handles the tax collectors, how Paul speaks about unbelievers and unrepentant believers, or how the prophets talked about the nation of Israel and her enemies.
If your response to some of the things said in Scripture is “well, that was mean.” Then you probably are picking up on the point the authors are making. They aren’t being mean or rude just for the sake of it, they have a category of speech that under certain requisites, demands that sort of speech. And if they have those categories, should we also have those categories today in our conversations and writings today? Wilson argues that we need to have those categories still today, especially if we can distinguish between the sort of proper and improper forms of satire. We can attempt this type of satire and land squarely in the area of ungodly speech if we are not prudent. But to avoid it altogether for the sake of peace and harmony in the world is to abandon what our Scriptural examples teach us.
Worth reading.
September 18, 2020
Don't get shrill. Get satire.
Read this in September '07 and again in March '12 and September ‘20.
Read this in September '07 and again in March '12 and September ‘20.
December 29, 2012
If you don't like this book, you probably deserve to have it used on you.
October 24, 2024
Really excellent - all Christians should read.
January 13, 2022
In this book Wilson argues/defends the use of satire in preaching. He used a lot of scripture to back up his pro-satire position from both the Old Testament and the New. And he was quite funny through out the book. It was clear that he is a sharp guy who isn't afraid to use his sharp tongue when he deems it necessary. Part of me really liked what he had to say. It seems to me that Mother Church in recent decades has become too soft in some areas and would benefit from repenting of the belief that our Christian discipleship should be producing "gentle and loving disciples" which to some basically translates to the Pillsbury Doughboy and Barney the Purple dinosaur types of Christians. So while I could agree with what Wilson was arguing for, I am a bit hesitant in the application of satire, mainly that it would go to the other extreme. It seems to me that it could be grossly misused by some Johnny MacArthur types who pretty much rag on anyone who disagrees with them, all in the name of being "biblical" or "prophetic."
That reservation aside, I'm glad I read it and will mull it over some more.
That reservation aside, I'm glad I read it and will mull it over some more.
September 20, 2013
This book is truly wonderful.
"Love that shuns a fight is an oxymoron....The modern evangelical world says peace, peace, but there is no peace. Neither is there love."
"Love that shuns a fight is an oxymoron....The modern evangelical world says peace, peace, but there is no peace. Neither is there love."
December 21, 2020
Good to consider and wield appropriately.
January 12, 2024
a pre arranged moment to throw dinner rolls at pat robertsons
December 22, 2023
I would recommend John Frame's review of this book, with which I agreed 100%.
BLUF: There is a place for satire, but this book recommends satire beyond what scripture does. There are no examples from scripture of when strong words are inappropriate. For example: Paul realizing it was inappropriate to call the Ananias the high priest a whitewashed wall. I don't see Doug ever apologizing for all the people he has called names. In my estimation, Doug does this all the time. It seems to be the bulk of what he does.
As Christians, our default method should be kindness, not mockery and name-calling.
The recent interaction with Kevin Deyoung and Doug Wilson is what prompted me to read this book.
Here are my thoughts below:
Theology that Bites Back: Thoughts on the Moscow Mood
A Summary of Two Approaches
Kevin DeYoung: Winsome, respectful, kind
Pros: Appears to be more accepting, gentle, and Christlike.
Cons: Could lead to compromise and contamination.
Doug Wilson: Biting Words, satire, prophetic mocking.
Pros: Appears uncompromising, projects strength and confidence, clever
Cons: Could be perceived as unloving, unwelcoming, and arrogant.
How are Christians supposed to conduct themselves? What should they be known for? These are
helpful questions that have been raised by the recent controversy sparked by Kevin DeYoung’s
article about the Moscow Mood. There are basically two approaches. Kevin DeYoung’s approach
seems to be the respectful and kind one, and Doug Wilson’s seems to be one marked by biting
words, satire, and even anger and unkindness. It should seem obvious at the outset which
approach this article will suggest is the more Christlike one. I think DeYoung’s article was
generally a helpful critique of Doug’s approach to ministry. However, I agree that it would be
profoundly unfair and unkind for Kevin to be able to issue such a critique and not find the time
to enter into the debate with Doug. Kevin thinks there is something profoundly unbalanced about
Doug’s ministry, and I do as well. It’s worth discussing.
Like Kevin, I want to show a degree appreciation for Doug’s ministry. My family was a part of a
CREC Church for about four years and we found many wonderful blessings while we were there.
Our pastor cared deeply for our family. The congregation was loving, and there were many who
loved our family. We grew in our appreciation for liturgy, worship, and the family. We still
maintain friendships that we treasure to this day. We are deeply grateful for our experience with
this community of saints. However, I would be dishonest if I didn’t experience aspects that I
found troubling.
I think Kevin DeYoung’s article clearly called attention to a mood that is troubling. I largely
think most of his points are lost on Doug Wilson, because both men are operating on two
different definitions of love. Doug thinks that his ministry of satire, using salty language, and
constantly picking fights is loving, and that it’s fine just the way it is. It largely needs no
tweaking or refining. Doug truly believes this is what God has called him to do. On the other
hand, DeYoung thinks being respectful, kind and taking the high ground is the loving thing to do.
There may be a place for satire and biting words, but Doug’s ministry very often takes it too far.
Indeed, Doug’s ministry is defined by this unloving mood.
I think what clearly needs to be said is that the Moscow Mood is largely not characterized by
love, kindness, and respectfulness. Joe Rigney suggested in his article that such a mood operates
on a dimmer switch. Can he truly and carefully consider from an outsider’s perspective, that the
so-called Moscow Mood’s dimmer switch feels more like a blowtorch to the rest of the world?
Many of us would like to see the dimmer switch get used more often. It is more than that though.
The approach that is very often utilized is one of unkindness. It is not what Scripture defines as
love.
“Love is patient and kind” (1 Cor. 13) I think Doug Wilson and his gang actually criticized
DeYoung for being kind. Kevin chose to find aspects of Doug’s ministry that are strong, and then
praised those things. This is Kevin being loving and kind, not saying he thinks everything they
do is wrong. However, Doug and his gang chose an all or nothing approach which couldn’t just
say thanks for the compliment. They had to issue insults. Doug said that Kevin seeing some of
the fruit simply makes him not blind. Once again, Doug’s theology is always biting back and
can’t stop for one moment and just accept the kind words. He has to hurl insults. And everyone
else is supposed to conclude that this is the loving and kind thing to do. However, this is the
sticking point. Doug is blind to his unkindness. He is so often coming up with clever ways to
insult people that those who already agree with his approach just go along with it. The reality
that Doug is blind to and refuses to see is that his clever words are just clever disguises for
unkindness. This is the worldliness that Doug refuses to acknowledge, and that Kevin so
helpfully pointed out in his article.
“Love is not arrogant and rude.” One sign of arrogance is that you never apologize and never
admit your sins. Apart from Sunday’s confession of sin, I don’t think I have ever seen this
modeled by Doug Wilson, and sadly, by many of his followers. According to Doug and the gang,
all of Kevin’s critique missed the mark by a mile. Really? I don’t think so. I think Doug and the
gang should search their hearts and ask the Lord why so many people don’t accept their
invitations to dialogue about various issues. It’s probably because it wouldn’t be profitable. A
mature Christian is humble enough to realize that they don’t have everything figured out and is
willing to go the extra mile to understand a competing perspective. I don’t believe Doug and
gang did this. Less than a week later they already had a response because their minds were
already made up. They are always right, and the opposition is always wrong. It is quite natural
not to want to engage with people where no reciprocity is experienced. We should be humble and
want to learn from one another’s strengths and weaknesses, but that can’t be done in an
environment where everyone already has everything pretty much figured out. Love is not
arrogant and rude, because Christ is not arrogant and rude. This should characterize our
approach, not some alleged tactic that a prophet used in the Old Testament. The serrated edge
should be replaced with love and kindness. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one
another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:32) If a sharp critique is required, then it should
be used sparingly. Doug Wilson seems to rejoice in starting fires. The name of one of their conferences is “Enraging the Culture”. This should never be our goal. The gospel is offensive all
by itself. It doesn’t need Christian preachers constantly looking around and picking more fights.
Let us consider Doug Wilson’s approach for a moment. Should we emulate Old Testament
prophets and their use of harsh language? Should we emulate Jesus’ anger when he overturned
tables and called the Pharisees white-washed tombs? I am not aware of anything in Scripture that
would call us to such a ministry. Furthermore, Doug regularly goes well beyond these scriptural
bounds. A critique is a critique, and it has its place. Name-calling, mocking, and biting words are
unkind. Although they are meant to project strength, they are actually a sign of weakness. In fact
our strength is found in the Lord, not in our clever ability to hurl insults with flashy prose.
Instead, Scripture calls us to godly virtues and the fruit of the Spirit. The chief aim of every
Christian is clear: we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. This summarizes all of
the law and prophets. Building an entire ministry enterprise around satire, mockery, and name-
calling doesn’t seem like a reasonable and faithful reading of Scripture. That doesn’t mean satire
is never a tool in the arsenal, but we should definitely seek to use it sparingly and with wisdom. I
think many of Doug Wilson’s critics would agree that if he used satire way more sparingly, then
it would probably be a lot more effective.
Additionally, Doug’s approach is unbalanced. One gets the impression that Doug sees the
Christian life as only a battlefield. Doug is always fighting with someone, making fun of
someone, and calling people out. If you don’t do it Doug’s way, then he’ll make fun of you! His
ministry is dedicated to “theology that bites back”. Doug’s default posture is one of fighting.
Although the Christian life is certainly a battlefield at times, it is also very often true that it takes
just as much courage to know when not to fight. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, not
because there is never a time for fighting, but because this wasn’t the right time to fight. (Matt.
26:52) What needs to be realized is that the Christian life is also a mission field. Central to that
mission is that the world would know we are Jesus’ disciples by our love for one another, not by
cleverly spoken words and putting others down. (John 13:35)
I think Kevin’s approach of being patient, kind and respectful should be the Christian’s default
mode. I come to this conclusion not because I think it is Kevin’s approach. I reach this
conclusion because Scripture says it is the Christian approach. Love requires us to be patient and
kind. Love requires us to pursue peace with everyone. “If possible, so far as it depends on you,
live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18). We should go out of our way to pursue peace with
everyone. We should go out of our way to be kind and tenderhearted. We should go out of our
way to love our neighbors as ourselves. This should be a rebuke to all of us. None of us do it
perfectly, and I can guarantee that all of us miss the mark by way more than a mile!
If God has saved us, then we should be kind, tenderhearted and loving toward one another. If
every single one of us were honest (Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson included) with ourselves,
then we’d be willing to admit where God might make this fruit grow more abundantly. We
desperately need Christians who will actually love their neighbors as themselves. None of us
have it nailed. We have a lot of work to do!
I do think it needs to be said that perhaps Kevin’s approach has led to compromise. The Gospel
Coalition has serious issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps Kevin could be strengthened by
Doug’s approach and apply this to his own ministry. The truth is that there are serious
compromises within the church today. We need angularity and strength now more than ever. We
need to purge the church of false teaching. We need able defenders of the gospel. We need to
address the issues of our day. However, I don’t think we need to abandon love and kindness in
that pursuit. I don’t think we need to unnecessarily “enrage the culture” or have an entire
ministry devoted to “biting back” our enemies. Jesus calls us to exactly the opposite. “Love your
enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse
you” (Luke 6:27-28). Perhaps Doug’s encounters are what the Apostle Paul warns about. But if
you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another (Gal.
5:15).
I would love to see Doug Wilson and Kevin DeYoung model this for us. The world is watching.
We don’t want to see just another online bite fest. Model for us Christian love so that the entire
world can see and glorify God in heaven. Both of you could take steps to go the extra mile. We
really need that kind of love in our culture. Doug, you could continue to pick on Baptists and
play with flamethrowers. Kevin, you could issue a respectful critique and not have enough
respect to give Doug the time of day. That’s what the rest of the world expects. That’s hardly
going the extra mile. I pray for much, much more.
“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you”
(Eph. 4:32).
BLUF: There is a place for satire, but this book recommends satire beyond what scripture does. There are no examples from scripture of when strong words are inappropriate. For example: Paul realizing it was inappropriate to call the Ananias the high priest a whitewashed wall. I don't see Doug ever apologizing for all the people he has called names. In my estimation, Doug does this all the time. It seems to be the bulk of what he does.
As Christians, our default method should be kindness, not mockery and name-calling.
The recent interaction with Kevin Deyoung and Doug Wilson is what prompted me to read this book.
Here are my thoughts below:
Theology that Bites Back: Thoughts on the Moscow Mood
A Summary of Two Approaches
Kevin DeYoung: Winsome, respectful, kind
Pros: Appears to be more accepting, gentle, and Christlike.
Cons: Could lead to compromise and contamination.
Doug Wilson: Biting Words, satire, prophetic mocking.
Pros: Appears uncompromising, projects strength and confidence, clever
Cons: Could be perceived as unloving, unwelcoming, and arrogant.
How are Christians supposed to conduct themselves? What should they be known for? These are
helpful questions that have been raised by the recent controversy sparked by Kevin DeYoung’s
article about the Moscow Mood. There are basically two approaches. Kevin DeYoung’s approach
seems to be the respectful and kind one, and Doug Wilson’s seems to be one marked by biting
words, satire, and even anger and unkindness. It should seem obvious at the outset which
approach this article will suggest is the more Christlike one. I think DeYoung’s article was
generally a helpful critique of Doug’s approach to ministry. However, I agree that it would be
profoundly unfair and unkind for Kevin to be able to issue such a critique and not find the time
to enter into the debate with Doug. Kevin thinks there is something profoundly unbalanced about
Doug’s ministry, and I do as well. It’s worth discussing.
Like Kevin, I want to show a degree appreciation for Doug’s ministry. My family was a part of a
CREC Church for about four years and we found many wonderful blessings while we were there.
Our pastor cared deeply for our family. The congregation was loving, and there were many who
loved our family. We grew in our appreciation for liturgy, worship, and the family. We still
maintain friendships that we treasure to this day. We are deeply grateful for our experience with
this community of saints. However, I would be dishonest if I didn’t experience aspects that I
found troubling.
I think Kevin DeYoung’s article clearly called attention to a mood that is troubling. I largely
think most of his points are lost on Doug Wilson, because both men are operating on two
different definitions of love. Doug thinks that his ministry of satire, using salty language, and
constantly picking fights is loving, and that it’s fine just the way it is. It largely needs no
tweaking or refining. Doug truly believes this is what God has called him to do. On the other
hand, DeYoung thinks being respectful, kind and taking the high ground is the loving thing to do.
There may be a place for satire and biting words, but Doug’s ministry very often takes it too far.
Indeed, Doug’s ministry is defined by this unloving mood.
I think what clearly needs to be said is that the Moscow Mood is largely not characterized by
love, kindness, and respectfulness. Joe Rigney suggested in his article that such a mood operates
on a dimmer switch. Can he truly and carefully consider from an outsider’s perspective, that the
so-called Moscow Mood’s dimmer switch feels more like a blowtorch to the rest of the world?
Many of us would like to see the dimmer switch get used more often. It is more than that though.
The approach that is very often utilized is one of unkindness. It is not what Scripture defines as
love.
“Love is patient and kind” (1 Cor. 13) I think Doug Wilson and his gang actually criticized
DeYoung for being kind. Kevin chose to find aspects of Doug’s ministry that are strong, and then
praised those things. This is Kevin being loving and kind, not saying he thinks everything they
do is wrong. However, Doug and his gang chose an all or nothing approach which couldn’t just
say thanks for the compliment. They had to issue insults. Doug said that Kevin seeing some of
the fruit simply makes him not blind. Once again, Doug’s theology is always biting back and
can’t stop for one moment and just accept the kind words. He has to hurl insults. And everyone
else is supposed to conclude that this is the loving and kind thing to do. However, this is the
sticking point. Doug is blind to his unkindness. He is so often coming up with clever ways to
insult people that those who already agree with his approach just go along with it. The reality
that Doug is blind to and refuses to see is that his clever words are just clever disguises for
unkindness. This is the worldliness that Doug refuses to acknowledge, and that Kevin so
helpfully pointed out in his article.
“Love is not arrogant and rude.” One sign of arrogance is that you never apologize and never
admit your sins. Apart from Sunday’s confession of sin, I don’t think I have ever seen this
modeled by Doug Wilson, and sadly, by many of his followers. According to Doug and the gang,
all of Kevin’s critique missed the mark by a mile. Really? I don’t think so. I think Doug and the
gang should search their hearts and ask the Lord why so many people don’t accept their
invitations to dialogue about various issues. It’s probably because it wouldn’t be profitable. A
mature Christian is humble enough to realize that they don’t have everything figured out and is
willing to go the extra mile to understand a competing perspective. I don’t believe Doug and
gang did this. Less than a week later they already had a response because their minds were
already made up. They are always right, and the opposition is always wrong. It is quite natural
not to want to engage with people where no reciprocity is experienced. We should be humble and
want to learn from one another’s strengths and weaknesses, but that can’t be done in an
environment where everyone already has everything pretty much figured out. Love is not
arrogant and rude, because Christ is not arrogant and rude. This should characterize our
approach, not some alleged tactic that a prophet used in the Old Testament. The serrated edge
should be replaced with love and kindness. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one
another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:32) If a sharp critique is required, then it should
be used sparingly. Doug Wilson seems to rejoice in starting fires. The name of one of their conferences is “Enraging the Culture”. This should never be our goal. The gospel is offensive all
by itself. It doesn’t need Christian preachers constantly looking around and picking more fights.
Let us consider Doug Wilson’s approach for a moment. Should we emulate Old Testament
prophets and their use of harsh language? Should we emulate Jesus’ anger when he overturned
tables and called the Pharisees white-washed tombs? I am not aware of anything in Scripture that
would call us to such a ministry. Furthermore, Doug regularly goes well beyond these scriptural
bounds. A critique is a critique, and it has its place. Name-calling, mocking, and biting words are
unkind. Although they are meant to project strength, they are actually a sign of weakness. In fact
our strength is found in the Lord, not in our clever ability to hurl insults with flashy prose.
Instead, Scripture calls us to godly virtues and the fruit of the Spirit. The chief aim of every
Christian is clear: we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. This summarizes all of
the law and prophets. Building an entire ministry enterprise around satire, mockery, and name-
calling doesn’t seem like a reasonable and faithful reading of Scripture. That doesn’t mean satire
is never a tool in the arsenal, but we should definitely seek to use it sparingly and with wisdom. I
think many of Doug Wilson’s critics would agree that if he used satire way more sparingly, then
it would probably be a lot more effective.
Additionally, Doug’s approach is unbalanced. One gets the impression that Doug sees the
Christian life as only a battlefield. Doug is always fighting with someone, making fun of
someone, and calling people out. If you don’t do it Doug’s way, then he’ll make fun of you! His
ministry is dedicated to “theology that bites back”. Doug’s default posture is one of fighting.
Although the Christian life is certainly a battlefield at times, it is also very often true that it takes
just as much courage to know when not to fight. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword, not
because there is never a time for fighting, but because this wasn’t the right time to fight. (Matt.
26:52) What needs to be realized is that the Christian life is also a mission field. Central to that
mission is that the world would know we are Jesus’ disciples by our love for one another, not by
cleverly spoken words and putting others down. (John 13:35)
I think Kevin’s approach of being patient, kind and respectful should be the Christian’s default
mode. I come to this conclusion not because I think it is Kevin’s approach. I reach this
conclusion because Scripture says it is the Christian approach. Love requires us to be patient and
kind. Love requires us to pursue peace with everyone. “If possible, so far as it depends on you,
live peaceably with all” (Rom. 12:18). We should go out of our way to pursue peace with
everyone. We should go out of our way to be kind and tenderhearted. We should go out of our
way to love our neighbors as ourselves. This should be a rebuke to all of us. None of us do it
perfectly, and I can guarantee that all of us miss the mark by way more than a mile!
If God has saved us, then we should be kind, tenderhearted and loving toward one another. If
every single one of us were honest (Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson included) with ourselves,
then we’d be willing to admit where God might make this fruit grow more abundantly. We
desperately need Christians who will actually love their neighbors as themselves. None of us
have it nailed. We have a lot of work to do!
I do think it needs to be said that perhaps Kevin’s approach has led to compromise. The Gospel
Coalition has serious issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps Kevin could be strengthened by
Doug’s approach and apply this to his own ministry. The truth is that there are serious
compromises within the church today. We need angularity and strength now more than ever. We
need to purge the church of false teaching. We need able defenders of the gospel. We need to
address the issues of our day. However, I don’t think we need to abandon love and kindness in
that pursuit. I don’t think we need to unnecessarily “enrage the culture” or have an entire
ministry devoted to “biting back” our enemies. Jesus calls us to exactly the opposite. “Love your
enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse
you” (Luke 6:27-28). Perhaps Doug’s encounters are what the Apostle Paul warns about. But if
you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another (Gal.
5:15).
I would love to see Doug Wilson and Kevin DeYoung model this for us. The world is watching.
We don’t want to see just another online bite fest. Model for us Christian love so that the entire
world can see and glorify God in heaven. Both of you could take steps to go the extra mile. We
really need that kind of love in our culture. Doug, you could continue to pick on Baptists and
play with flamethrowers. Kevin, you could issue a respectful critique and not have enough
respect to give Doug the time of day. That’s what the rest of the world expects. That’s hardly
going the extra mile. I pray for much, much more.
“Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you”
(Eph. 4:32).
July 14, 2025
Is ridicule legit? Should a Christian do it? Is it becoming for the believer to lampoon, belittle, or deride those he disagrees with? Wilson says yes. I came into this book inclined to disagree. I'm leaving the book impressed with his case, though still inclined to disagree. Wilson makes airtight arguments that Jesus, Paul, and company used satire against their opponents. At one point he asks, "Some might say (and do say) that we are not Jesus, and so we do not have the wisdom to insult properly. Fine. So why then do we have the wisdom to love properly? Can't we screw that up too?" A good point I hadn't considered.
So why do I still disagree? I grant that Jesus used satire. I've long thought Galatians 5:12 is the funniest verse in the Bible (if you don't see the humor, you haven’t understood Paul), and Paul was certainly mocking the Judaizers. I'm even willing to say that satire is an option for the Jesus-follower - one that should be used shrewdly. But here is my chief disagreement with Wilson. Search the New Testament. Nowhere will you find Jesus or any of the apostles teaching anything that approaches what you find in Serrated Edge. What you do find is just the opposite. Consider Colossians 4:5;1 Peter 2:12, Philippians 2:15; Matthew 5:16; Titus 2:7-8, Romans 12:17-18; 1 Corinthians 8:21. The Christian's rhetoric is gentle, peaceable, honorable, blameless. What makes this response so powerful is its univocality. This is what New Testament teaches on Godly discourse, and there is never any encouragement to dunk on our opponents.
To be fair, Doug Wilson does address some of these verses, but he doesn't address the argument I've made. The unified instruction the Bible gives to Christians is to be honorable and fair-minded in our discourse. I intend to make that my default disposition, even if I can't help but smirk at some of Wilson's witticisms.
So why do I still disagree? I grant that Jesus used satire. I've long thought Galatians 5:12 is the funniest verse in the Bible (if you don't see the humor, you haven’t understood Paul), and Paul was certainly mocking the Judaizers. I'm even willing to say that satire is an option for the Jesus-follower - one that should be used shrewdly. But here is my chief disagreement with Wilson. Search the New Testament. Nowhere will you find Jesus or any of the apostles teaching anything that approaches what you find in Serrated Edge. What you do find is just the opposite. Consider Colossians 4:5;1 Peter 2:12, Philippians 2:15; Matthew 5:16; Titus 2:7-8, Romans 12:17-18; 1 Corinthians 8:21. The Christian's rhetoric is gentle, peaceable, honorable, blameless. What makes this response so powerful is its univocality. This is what New Testament teaches on Godly discourse, and there is never any encouragement to dunk on our opponents.
To be fair, Doug Wilson does address some of these verses, but he doesn't address the argument I've made. The unified instruction the Bible gives to Christians is to be honorable and fair-minded in our discourse. I intend to make that my default disposition, even if I can't help but smirk at some of Wilson's witticisms.
February 9, 2022
Love him or hate him, Doug Wilson is pretty good at cutting people up. Now the natural question is, since Wilson is a Christian, whether or not that type of biting rhetoric is justified in the Christian life.
One thing that I like about Wilson is that he does not sanitize the words of Jesus. He does a good job of pointing out how uncomfortable that we would be if we heard the words of Jesus in our modern context (just as his original readers must have been).
The work is really good and it gets better when John Frame steps in. Frame criticizes element of the work, and Wilson responds both graciously and firmly. That interchange, and the model it gives for disagreement, is almost as good as the book itself. I have linked it below.
https://frame-poythress.org/review-of...
One thing that I like about Wilson is that he does not sanitize the words of Jesus. He does a good job of pointing out how uncomfortable that we would be if we heard the words of Jesus in our modern context (just as his original readers must have been).
The work is really good and it gets better when John Frame steps in. Frame criticizes element of the work, and Wilson responds both graciously and firmly. That interchange, and the model it gives for disagreement, is almost as good as the book itself. I have linked it below.
https://frame-poythress.org/review-of...
May 17, 2007
Fun little book on why satire is biblical and not used enough by us sentimental American Christians.
July 26, 2007
The brevity of this book is one of its chiefest strengths, along with its solid and honest Biblicism. Goody-two-shoes Christians and Nanny-nanny-boo-boo liberals beware.
March 8, 2016
I loved this book. God, help us make fun of the right things...
December 3, 2024
Excellent. Must read.
June 7, 2018
"Love that refuses to defend that which is loved is not biblical love at all. Such a sentiment is actually self-absorption. Love that shuns a fight is an oxymoron, and so I turn the charge around. The modern evangelical world says peace, peace, but there is no peace. Neither is there love.
I love the right worship of our triune God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of both. I love the Church, despite the make-up she is currently using. I love the Scriptures, and the message of free grace it brings to a race steeped in idolatrous folly. I love my wife, children, and grandchildren. Thought I haven't seen them, I love my great-grandchildren and want my descendants to have a place to live in the world where they can worship God with more than three chords. I love my parents, brothers, sister, cousins, nieces, and nephews. God has given us a heritage that I intend to love fiercely until I die. I love the Reformed faith - both its glorious past and yet more glorious future."
I love the right worship of our triune God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of both. I love the Church, despite the make-up she is currently using. I love the Scriptures, and the message of free grace it brings to a race steeped in idolatrous folly. I love my wife, children, and grandchildren. Thought I haven't seen them, I love my great-grandchildren and want my descendants to have a place to live in the world where they can worship God with more than three chords. I love my parents, brothers, sister, cousins, nieces, and nephews. God has given us a heritage that I intend to love fiercely until I die. I love the Reformed faith - both its glorious past and yet more glorious future."
October 29, 2021
The one time, to my knowledge, that I was in the same state as Doug Wilson, I overheard him say the following: "Whenever they give you a line, cross it."
That line kind of encapsulates my feelings toward Wilson. He's an interesting guy, but not one that I want to model my own behavior after as that would make life unbearable for the people around me, and certainly not one I'd like, say, my students or children to model their behavior after, as that would make life unbearable for me. (All with a given value of "they," but all theys are wes to someone, yes? [But our wes are more important than their wes. {?}])
Okay so. This book is hard to discount given its intensely scriptural argumentative stance, and perhaps my reservations about satire as a contemporary argumentative tool need to just be scrapped, and I need to, as Wilson suggests, repent of my criticisms. And yet there's something that still doesn't feel right about the whole program, and I think it crystalizes in Wilson's argument that the biblical prophets were 'righteous, and therefore right'-- and by implication, post-canonical arguers who are righteous are also right. Isn't this radically incorrect? Wasn't Luther, say, that righteous dude, blindingly wrong in many things? Etc.
And I've got this pain because I want to be on a side I can fully side with, you know
That line kind of encapsulates my feelings toward Wilson. He's an interesting guy, but not one that I want to model my own behavior after as that would make life unbearable for the people around me, and certainly not one I'd like, say, my students or children to model their behavior after, as that would make life unbearable for me. (All with a given value of "they," but all theys are wes to someone, yes? [But our wes are more important than their wes. {?}])
Okay so. This book is hard to discount given its intensely scriptural argumentative stance, and perhaps my reservations about satire as a contemporary argumentative tool need to just be scrapped, and I need to, as Wilson suggests, repent of my criticisms. And yet there's something that still doesn't feel right about the whole program, and I think it crystalizes in Wilson's argument that the biblical prophets were 'righteous, and therefore right'-- and by implication, post-canonical arguers who are righteous are also right. Isn't this radically incorrect? Wasn't Luther, say, that righteous dude, blindingly wrong in many things? Etc.
And I've got this pain because I want to be on a side I can fully side with, you know
December 19, 2022
I expected to disagree with more of this book than I actually did. I would still argue that Wilson goes too far in places, interpreting certain biblical passages and situations as satirical or sarcastic when they actually aren’t. (Jesus calling Peter a “rock? Paul’s statements in Philippians 3:19? Really?) Nevertheless, this book does a good job of providing a biblically-based apologia for the legitimate art of satire.
I like how Wilson “translates” some of the more notable satirical passages of Scripture into modern English, helping his readers get a better feel for what the Biblical writers (and, in some cases, Christ himself) are actually saying. He rightly points out that arrogance is not determined mainly by whether the other party’s feelings are hurt, but by the speaker’s fidelity to God’s word. He also rightly sets his sights on the abject hypocrisy and Pharisaism of modern-day Evangelicalism.
The main fault of this book is not what is said, but what is left unsaid. Very little explanation is given for how satire is to be utilized by the Christian. Other than an ever-so-brief, “don’t try this at home” warning at the end, there are no instructions on how one can avoid the numerous pitfalls of utilizing satire.
This problem has already been noted by none other than John Frame:
"[B]y Doug’s own admission, harsh rebuke is a dangerous instrument—something you should not use without wisdom and experience. So I must fault him for writing a book praising this instrument, urging its greater use, defending its practitioners, claiming for it a central role in biblical witness, and only then telling his readers (in much more muted tones) to use caution. And the cautions he proposes are too general to be of much use to anybody."
(It would be helpful to point out that Wilson himself actually agrees with Frame’s general assessment.)
As such, A Serrated Edge is probably best for Christians convinced that satire should never (or almost never) be used—not for those eager to utilize satire as frequently as possible. The former could benefit from a more robust understanding of polemics, whereas the latter would likely wield it like a child who’s found his dad’s gun.
I like how Wilson “translates” some of the more notable satirical passages of Scripture into modern English, helping his readers get a better feel for what the Biblical writers (and, in some cases, Christ himself) are actually saying. He rightly points out that arrogance is not determined mainly by whether the other party’s feelings are hurt, but by the speaker’s fidelity to God’s word. He also rightly sets his sights on the abject hypocrisy and Pharisaism of modern-day Evangelicalism.
The main fault of this book is not what is said, but what is left unsaid. Very little explanation is given for how satire is to be utilized by the Christian. Other than an ever-so-brief, “don’t try this at home” warning at the end, there are no instructions on how one can avoid the numerous pitfalls of utilizing satire.
This problem has already been noted by none other than John Frame:
"[B]y Doug’s own admission, harsh rebuke is a dangerous instrument—something you should not use without wisdom and experience. So I must fault him for writing a book praising this instrument, urging its greater use, defending its practitioners, claiming for it a central role in biblical witness, and only then telling his readers (in much more muted tones) to use caution. And the cautions he proposes are too general to be of much use to anybody."
(It would be helpful to point out that Wilson himself actually agrees with Frame’s general assessment.)
As such, A Serrated Edge is probably best for Christians convinced that satire should never (or almost never) be used—not for those eager to utilize satire as frequently as possible. The former could benefit from a more robust understanding of polemics, whereas the latter would likely wield it like a child who’s found his dad’s gun.
December 1, 2021
One common notion in modern evangelicalism is that good Christians should, above all, always be nice. Wilson argues that some people and ideas are deserving of ridicule, and satire is therefore a proper and godly response. He reminds us how satire and sarcasm were effectively (and obviously biblically) used by Jesus, Paul, the OT prophets, and even God himself (check out Job 40!). Once the legitimacy of satire has thus been established, he then explains why modern evangelicalism itself is such a ripe and deserving target.
Jeremy wrote a very good review (which was the reason I read this book) and included multiple helpful links:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Jeremy wrote a very good review (which was the reason I read this book) and included multiple helpful links:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
December 27, 2018
The book’s argument is that sometimes sarcasm and mockery are legitimate tools for a believer to use against inane teaching and practice. Defending himself against arguments that such tactics are not very Christ-like, the author argues that quite the opposite is true, showing from the Scriptures Jesus’ own use of such tactics. He also points out where the prophets and apostles do the same. The author, in fact, not only suggests that such tools are legitimate but are sometimes necessary in the defense of true orthodoxy, particularly against the false teachers within the Church. “Kindness to sheep is hostility to wolves. Kindness to wolves is hostility to sheep. All attempts to get the wolves and sheep together for some kind of an ecumenical lovefest will only result in fat, contented wolves.” The book is convincing.
January 15, 2020
Set Free to Laugh
Toward the start of this book, there is a description of the different reactions Christians might have to satire. I usually belonged to the camp that would begin to laugh but then stifle it down thinking it might not be appropriate. I feel a lot more free to laugh now. This was a great defense of the proper, Biblical use of satire, and a great explanation of what the proper use of satire looks like. If you’re curious about either of those things, I’d recommend this book!
Toward the start of this book, there is a description of the different reactions Christians might have to satire. I usually belonged to the camp that would begin to laugh but then stifle it down thinking it might not be appropriate. I feel a lot more free to laugh now. This was a great defense of the proper, Biblical use of satire, and a great explanation of what the proper use of satire looks like. If you’re curious about either of those things, I’d recommend this book!
March 17, 2023
A short yet insightful introduction and explanation of the type of literary device used in the Bible which is rarely used in the modern day Church - satire. Doug Wilson gives a Biblical apologetic for this device as well as practical wisdom in its use along with sentences that made me laugh.
Two added bonuses are the quotes from Spurgeon's book Eccentric Preaching and the intro to Douglas Jones' book at the end
Two added bonuses are the quotes from Spurgeon's book Eccentric Preaching and the intro to Douglas Jones' book at the end
February 24, 2026
Really helpful. This books serves as a defense of sarcasm, wit, satire, mockery, scorn, etc. in Christian discourse. Probably the best book on the subject by default, and certainly paradigm-shifting for the average "evangelical" Christian.
Underneath the defense of satire and mockery are a number of critiques of modern, deracinated evangelicalism which, for a book written over 20 years ago, still ring true today.
Underneath the defense of satire and mockery are a number of critiques of modern, deracinated evangelicalism which, for a book written over 20 years ago, still ring true today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 159 reviews