What's so bad about Paul Washer?
OY VEY...where do I even start?
Please let me be corrected on any of the below, if needed.
To begin with, he exemplifies one of the tendencies I often observe in Calvinists, which I call "turning the Gospel into Yfelspel". In his case, this mostly takes the form of a "Total Depravity on steroids" kind of mentality, where he seeks to inspire his audience not by extolling the greatness and holiness of God but by cudgelling us over how pathetic we are and how much we suck.
In terms of how God views man, he seems to be rather of the "Sinners at the hands of an angry God" variety, which carries a host of problems with it -- especially when combined with a rigid Calvinism.
In terms of his opinions about culture, he seems to embody what I call the "Works-Righteousness Gospel according to the Boomers", which in essence means that the gauge of a "successful and productive life" is that you start working at 16, have a career by 25, and your time is spent exclusively on your career, family-leading, and church work; plus, of course, that hobbies like gaming are a waste of time -- much of the same stuff that Matt Walsh believes, only Washer is much more dangerous than Walsh because this mindset is much more prominent in his philosophy, and he dresses up his opinions with a Bible garb and uses the Gospel to shame you for not being "successful" enough by his standards.
Also, it is not encouraging at all that he is of the Joshua Harris school of romance; he believes, in his own words, that dating is unbiblical and heretical, and we should return to courtship and early marriages as a model for romantic relationships -- in fact, his view is so strict that he insists that you are obligated to ask permission from a woman's father before you court her, and even so you should still not do anything with her before marriage which you would not do with a brother or sister (Yeah, you heard him! Stop holding hands, ya sluts!) -- which is, leniently spoken, dangerously close to adding to the Gospel. What's more, much of the argumentation behind this part of his theology is completely ahistorical nonsense, and he ends up being sexist both towards women and towards men in the process.
I get the impression that he leans towards an idolisation of a very particular and stereotypical kind of "sigma" man as an epitome of manhood -- so I wouldn't be surprised if he also preaches some kind of "works-based masculinity" in addition to what I covered in #3 above. Someone in a Reddit thread gave this exquisite explanation: "I kind of wonder about this whole 'manhood' movement that seems to be so trendy lately. Esau was a manly man, but God chose Jakob, who stayed inside cooking all the time. Samuël wanted to choose a big and strong man as a king, but God chose the childlike prettyboy called David. Can't we just be men without needing to prove it so hard all the time? It makes it look like we don't even believe we are men ourselves."
This video should give you a better idea of the kind of stuff he believes, and why his worldview is completely misguided. Being dead wrong about a host of issues is one thing, but when you have the nerve to add the gravitas of the Gospel and the pulpit to your outlandish opinions it becomes much worse. I know that he correctly identifies and diagnoses many problems with postmodern culture and contemporary Christianity, but I believe that, more often than not, the remedies he proposes are almost as bad as the diseases.
