Fwd: Re: [Vision2020] On Doug's Daily News Letter --

[Douglas]

>Visionaries,
>
>Andreas must have missed my earlier post responding to Bill London on this 
>issue. Here it is again.
>
>Visionaries,
>
>Bill has found what he thinks is a contradiction. I am sorry for him that 
>this controversy isn't turning out as he had hoped.
>
>1. The slave trade was an abomination, as argued in Southern Slavery.
>2. Ante-bellum slavery as an institution was unbiblical, as argued in 
>Southern Slavery.
>3. Without the violent abolitionists, slavery in the US would have ended 
>peacefully, as argued in Southern Slavery.
>4. In that context, it was possible for a Christian to own slaves (or to 
>be a slave) without sin, provided they followed the requirements of the 
>New Testament for those in such positions. As argued in Southern Slavery.
>
>Better luck next time. I would give page numbers for each of the above but 
>refusing to do so might encourage some folks to read the whole thing.
>
>Cordially,
>
>Douglas Wilson
>
>Back to the present. On the next go-round, I will supply the page numbers. 
>The time after that, the quotes.
>
>Cordially,
>
>Douglas Wilson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 01:42 PM 11/18/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>>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
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ