[Vision2020] The end of real slavery

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

The psalmist, in one of *his* controversies, lamented the fact that every 
day his words got twisted (Ps. 56:5). Sometimes the twisting was 
deliberate, and sometimes it was probably just a matter of somebody not 
getting the joke. Donovan, the point of my post yesterday was that the 
University of Idaho is a hate group according to the posting of the 
Southern Poverty Law Center, that infallible arbiter of all that is Hate.

And then Rose trumpets the mojo of local professional, credentialed 
historians, men who do not know how to spell the names of those whom they 
oppose. Kind of like Churchill going after that "wicked man, Hilter, a man 
who must be stopped at all costs." Footnote: see Adulf Hilter, Myne Kumpf.
Rose also points to "judicious and thoughtful" nature of their "academic 
review." Her definition of judicious and thoughtful means that apparently 
her copy of the diatribe does not show the spittle-flecks. But why trust 
the professionalism of men at one hundred and fifty years when they don't 
know what is going on in their own tiny, little town, just a couple blocks 
away? We are not talking about the points under dispute, we are talking 
about the fact that it is Peter Leithart, not Leithard, George Grant, not 
Gary Grant, etc. If you guys really intend to make these gentlemen your 
champions in the great contest of whose footnotes are the buffest, then may 
I politely suggest that some remedial work is necessary? You have a couple 
of Professional Historians who not ready for prime time yet. But it is not 
that I am demanding this -- I like their work just the way it is. "Too long 
we have slumbered! We must do the hard, academic, Professional work that 
only we few Credentialed folk can do, so that we may finally stop that 
nefarious Wouglas Dilson as he attempts to set up a new Zion right here 
under our credentialed noses!"

Joan "making it up as she goes along" Opyr does have a way with words, for 
she on honeydew hath fed. Her words flow nicely and make a pleasant sound 
as they sail past the ear, but notice what she is maintaining at the end of 
the day. She maintains that my very basic questions are being dealt from 
the bottom of the deck. In other words, to continue the metaphor, in a 
public debate about ethics, for someone to ask about foundations for 
ethical claims is a form of cheating. *That's* a good way to deal with hard 
questions!

         "Why do you say that?"
         "Aaaa! No fair! Cheater! Call the sheriff!"

Joan the Law says that owning another human being is wrong, period. She 
then says, "You're free to call this moral relativism." No, I don't call it 
moral relativism at all. I call it arbitrary absolutism. And I want to know 
why the universe must listen to Joan the Law. "Bad news, Osama. Joan says 
'no.'" She says she is content to continue the ethical practice of making 
it up as we go along and rejects the idea of "eternal verity." This, in the 
same post where she avows the eternal verity that slavery is always wrong. 
Which is it? Are we for eternal verities or against them? If you are for 
them, then give the basis for them. The hand is over -- show your cards. 
But if you are against eternal verities, then where is all this moral 
indignation coming from? If there is no absolute right and wrong, then what 
could possibly be wrong with our slavery booklet? If there is an absolute 
right and wrong, what is the basis for it? I may not be Socrates, and this 
may not be Sunday School, but it is a relevant (and unanswered) question 
nonetheless.

Without an arche, you have no transcendent authority over us all that 
requires us all to listen and heed. You reject all forms of such a 
transcendental ethic, binding on all, to which all must submit. And then a 
moment later, along comes a post containing an ethical claim to which all 
must submit. One  moment, all is relative. The next moment universal 
ethical claims are being applied to all and sundry. This is not moral 
relativism, it is simply moral confusion.

But the Lord Jesus is not like this. He is the same, yesterday, today and 
forever. Jesus Christ is Lord. His word governs all things. He commands us 
to come to God the Father through His own sacrifice of Himself on the 
cross, and we are to do this in the power of the Holy Spirit. His word 
binds all things together, and in Him all things consist. He tells us to 
forgive one another, just as we have been forgiven. He tells that we must 
lay aside all malice, bitterness, wrath, clamor, and evil-speaking. He by 
His great grace offers us salvation. More than that, He has effectually 
brought salvation to the world. But He does not accomplish all His purposes 
suddenly -- we do not lurch into the new heavens and new earth. Rather, His 
way of doing things works through the world as leaven works through the 
loaf. This is how the world has been transformed, and continues to be 
transformed, as Christians follow His word carefully in whatever place the 
providence of God has placed them. "For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, 
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye 
are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). Notice that important phrase 
-- "bond nor free."

In love, God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ. In that love, 
why not be reconciled? And when He has accomplished His great gift of 
saving the world, all forms of slavery will have been ended forever, along 
with the foundation for every form of slavery -- which is slavery to sin. 
No friend of sin was ever a true foe of slavery.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson