[Vision2020] Fwd: Town hall meeting

[Douglas]

>Visionaries,
>
>Allow me to continue to extend a cordial invitation to our town hall 
>meeting. December 11, 7 pm, at the Kenworthy. We hope to answer every 
>question we can, on the spot, and with opportunity for follow-up 
>questions. We will be able to do this without the intervention of print 
>media gumming up the works. Actually, that was not fair. The Argonaut and 
>the Trib have done a really decent job in this hubbub. But back to the 
>town hall meeting, if you have a question, or an objection, please bring 
>it. We will address them as best we can, and as cordially as we can.
>
>In his great book Orthodoxy, Chesterton once said, "This began to be 
>alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to 
>include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat 
>Christianity with."
>
>The aptness of this observation, as well as the crying need for Rose to 
>change her plans and come to our town hall meeting, is seen in the following:
>
>>Credenda Agenda, which I think of as your baby, carries an article in the 
>>current issue under the heading Femina, which positively encourages godly 
>>women to expect a divine reward if they rat out their dissenting husbands 
>>to the pastor and elders of the church.  (This reporting is essential if 
>>their husbands are fools, making a stink about the church or, are 
>>unrepentant about questioning the decisions of church leadership. And 
>>that is different from life under Chairman Mao or Comrade Stalin how? And 
>>how desperate are you guys anyhow?)
>
>First, Rose simply made up the stuff about making a stink "about the 
>church," and questioning "decisions of church leadership." That was not in 
>the column at all. Perhaps Rose has taken a course in research study 
>methods from Quinlan and Ramsey. Oops. I really am trying to live up to 
>certain exacting scholarship standards I just found out about recently -- 
>make that Rinlan and Quamsey.
>
>But here is the real issue:
>
>"You Christians teach that wives should submit to their husbands, right?"
>"Right."
>"What if a husband is beating his wife? Then what should she do?"
>
>At this point, this becomes a choose your own adventure novel. Suppose the 
>(horrible) answer were:
>
>"Nothing. She should be submissive, and just take it."
>
>At this point the Tolerance Police would set to caterwauling about how 
>such Christians hate women. And that caterwauling would not obscure the 
>fact that, on this question, they would happen to be right. A blind 
>squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. No human authority on earth is 
>absolute, and each legitimate authority must defer to other legitimate 
>authorities according to their respective spheres. This involves family 
>government, church government and civil government. There are times, Rose, 
>when a woman should call the cops. There are times when she should call 
>her pastor or elders. I am sorry you do not appear to think so. It appears 
>that feminism is still evolving.
>
>So if the answer were no, as it was in the Femina column she mentions, and 
>the wife urged to take her problem with an abusive husband to the elders, 
>the caterwauling ascends yet again. Chairman Mao! Stalin! Returning to the 
>quote from Chesterton, it begins to looks as though Christ Church were not 
>bad enough to encompass any evil, but rather that any rock is good enough 
>to throw at us.
>
>One of the advantages of a town hall meeting is that is should make 
>abundantly clear what our differences actually are (and they are 
>significant), but it should also make clear that kicking puppies is not 
>part of our liturgy. So for those whose minds are already made up, and who 
>do not want to be confused with any facts, I hope you enjoy whatever 
>alternative activity you select. I would recommend sitting cross-legged on 
>the floor, fingers in ears, while singing the national anthem at a medium 
>level. "Ohhh, say can you SEEEE . . ." Then, the day after the meeting, 
>you can post to this forum to let us all know that you found our arguments 
>and answers singularly unconvincing, and that you will see us at the SUB.
>
>Bill London asked Roy Atwood about his quoted comment that "this booklet 
>was not published as a scholarly work." I'll let Roy address whether the 
>Daily News got the quote right (imagine . . . its easy if you try), and, 
>if so, what he meant by it. But please allow my take on it for a minute. 
>Our booklet was obviously not a scholarly work by local professional 
>historians because we spelled all the names right, quoted our sources 
>accurately, did not make up facts to suit ourselves, did not post our work 
>on a government web site illegally, and we are willing to engage in debate 
>with those who challenge our work. Consequently, we admit with shame that 
>our booklet did not meet the Exacting Standards established by the 
>Quinlan/Ramsey piece ("copyrighted 2003, no thinking about this work 
>without permission from the authors!").
>
>Debi Robinson-Smith takes umbrage at the point we made re: "fakers, 
>humorless, joyless, and encouragers of racism and violence." But we were 
>not maintaining that every last secularist is humorless, etc. We do 
>believe that the logic of secularism tends that way, and that multitudes 
>of secularists have followed this logic out as evidenced by the general 
>howling in this controversy. Exceptions? Sure -- Jim Fisher of the Trib. 
>Carl and Andreas on this list, et al. But we reiterate that the 
>fundamentalism of the left is not very attractive, rejoices in pettiness, 
>hesitates not when it comes to circulating a lie (and when caught in a 
>lie, simply moves on to the next one), and likes to initiate pogroms in 
>the name of inclusive diversity. Have the deadly earnest "Not in Our Town" 
>folks picked out an appropriate colored shape for us to have to pin on our 
>clothes yet? I suggest a big "I" for Intolerant.
>
>We would love to see any of you at the town hall meeting. Really. Melynda, 
>hope your kids get better. Hope you can make it.
>
>Cordially,
>
>Douglas Wilson
>
>
>