[Vision2020] On Doug's Daily News Letter --

[Andreas Schou]

Boy. 

I was just about to write a response to the letter to the Moscow/Pullman Daily News -- and then I discovered that someone had already written it for me! It's so nice of neoconfederates to do all my hard work for me.

From: www.littlegeneva.com.

"One possible explanation for the Christ Church slavery thing from last time is that Doug Jones, not Doug Wilson, wrote the letter calling slavery an evil. Greg Settles pointed out to me that Jones is the contact person listed. Settles also observes that Jones did not join Credenda-Agenda until Volume 5, Number 1, two issues after "A Southern Apologetic" (Volume 4, Number 6). Settles discovered that in the very same issue announcing the arrival of Jones, this letter from Steve Wilkins was printed, signaling a future comeradery: "I have seldom seen such a balanced treatment and never a more Biblical one. All of us down here (Christian Confederates) salute you as esteemed brethren not only for this, but for all the other fine work you have produced." Contrast the two "Wilsons." Earlier he wrote: "And nothing is clearer - the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States... Our humanistic and democratic culture regards s
lavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are Christian. Whom do you believe?" Now he writes: "It’s ridiculous to have to say the obvious - that slavery has always been an evil needing to be abolished. But that has been our position from the start... We side with nonviolent abolitionism." Agree or disagree, you have to admit that this is a contradiction."

"If Jones is responsible for the about-face, it would not be surprising. Read these critiques of Jones' article "The Biblical Offense of Racism." His argument is basically that miscegenation is appropriate and should be at least indirectly encouraged: "For parents to forbid such a marriage solely on the basis of race is sinful." But he doesn't stop there! To even belong to a racially exclusive club is sinful and will set you up for excommunication. It would have been of tremendous value if Jones had at least defined his terms before he pontificated about race. His definition of racism seems to be any acknowledgement of racial inequality. That's a sweeping condemnation of our forefathers. It seems to me that Jones confuses salvation with culture when he says that the "gospel makes race insignificant." He is undoubtedly correct that all races are made in God's image and all races can be saved. But as he looks around his neighborhood, I wonder if he is surprised that so many fa
ces look like his. One particularly breathtaking statement: "If race has no biblical significance, then the state has no right to legislate in a way which makes race significant." This would logically prevent any nation from restricting immigration, not to mention the fact that it elevates democracy to a sacrosanct level. There is no biblical imperative that citizenship must be available to all; it is merely assumed to be so by Jones. Rather, we are commanded to treat the citizen and the stranger justly, and whatever its flaws, this is exactly what the Old South did. Equality under the law was guaranteed in the old republic, even though the state was not a "color blind institution," as Jones insists every state must be. He quotes question 135 from the Westminster Larger Catechism but not the answer to question 126. He denounces Jim Crow laws without bothering to consider their purpose: to maintain antebellum political inequality and to prevent miscegenation. These laws delaye
d the effect of Lincoln's tyranny until the 1960s, but it is enough for Jones to dismiss them with a word about lynchings. This is like dismissing the Puritans because of the Salem witch trials. By the way, I happen to like Jones. My daughter is at this moment reading his book Huguenot Garden."

"Doug Wilson and his church respond to charges against them, saying "that slavery has always been an evil needing to be abolished." While the charges against them are silly, this line actually contradicts what Wilson has taught about slavery for at least 10 years. He wrote a book in 1996 with Steve Wilkins called Southern Slavery As It Was that paints a more nuanced picture: "The slave trade was an abomination. The Bible condemns it, and all who believe the Bible are bound to do the same. Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to do the same... Provided he owns them in conformity to Christ's laws for such situations, the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves." (Gary DeMar argues that since the Bible prohibits man-stealing, slaveowners were guilty by association, but the authors reject this idea.) Rather, it is the view of the authors that slavery is an institution attended by certain evils, such a
s the fact that some masters will mistreat their slaves. "It is obvious that in a fallen world, an institution like slavery will be accompanied by many attendant evils. Such evils existed with ancient Hebrew slavery, ancient Roman slavery, and with American slavery. The issue is not whether sinners will sin, but rather how Christians are commanded to respond to such abuses and evils." Some men will abuse their wives, but this does not mean that the institution of marriage is sinful. This is not to say that every word in the book is agreeable. "As Christians, we regard the gift at Pentecost to be a great reversal of Babel..." This is nonsense. Still, we are left to wonder what is going on here. Has Wilson reversed his thoroughly scriptural position, or is his session speaking for him? I'm reluctant to believe that Christ Church would ever cave in to their critics."

Phew. That was a long one.

That all having been said -- Doug, if you've changed your mind, for God's sake, /admit it/, don't lie about it. I'd be entirely willing to stop arguing with you on this subject -- that is, if you can admit to having changed your mind.

-- ACS