[Vision2020] The end of Moscow?

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

Donovan wrote to ask about my responsibility in helping to give Moscow a 
black eye in the PR department. What was my intent in all of this?

First, Donovan is exactly right in anticipating how I would respond. We did 
not print and distribute the anonymous flyers, we did not ask for a front 
page news story that erroneously proclaimed slavery as the topic of the 
conference, we did not ask for the AP to pick up the story, using that 
error as the hook of the story, we did not ask for certain progressives to 
start boycotting businesses owned by multi-racial families who happen to 
attend our multi-racial church (to show their opposition of racism!), and 
we did not ask for the subsequent torrent of shrill, humorless, and ugly 
denunciations. Now, according to the normal drill, whenever the progressive 
meat grinder goes into action, the selected victim is supposed to apologize 
and promise to be a good boy thereafter. But we, taking our cue from Tom 
Petty, are not backing down. And now Moscow has a black eye because certain 
people insisted on maintaining their slanderous lies at the top of their 
voices.

But what is my motive in continuing to stand my ground? Well, here it is 
(and this was explained fully in the booklet by the way). As a Christian 
minister it is my covenanted responsibility to teach the people of God to 
live and die by the Word of God, all of it, and not to be embarrassed by 
anything it might contain that is contrary to contemporary secularist 
pieties. But whenever Christians undertake the responsibility of living 
this way, it brings them from time to time into conflict with non-believers 
around them. Here is an example:

"What do you think about what Massachusetts court did this last week on gay 
marriage?"
"Well, I oppose it."
"Why?"
"Well, the Bible describes homosexuality as a sin that must be repented of, 
and in Romans 1, it also describes the sin of approving of homosexuality. 
But Jesus can forgive . . ."
"You take this position because of what the Bible says?
"That's right."
"But the Bible allows for slavery. And it prohibits clam chowder. And it 
requires the death penalty for uppity teenagers."

Now at this point, the modern Christian can go one of two directions. Here 
is option one.

"Well, you have to understand that the Bible is an ancient book, and that 
was then, this is now."
"Exactly. That is why we should allow for gay marriage today. That was 
then. This is now."
Checkmate.

Option two:

"Well, you have to study the Bible carefully to determine what it actually 
teaches about slavery, clam chowder, and the death penalty for rebellious 
children. But once the careful work of exegesis is done, Christians are 
called to cheerfully submit to and affirm whatever the Bible teaches on 
those subjects."
"You can't be serious!"
"Yes. Let me explain how this relates to the gospel of Jesus Christ . . ."

If the Bible is not reliable in matters of history, poetry, beauty, 
worship, cosmology, devotion, ethical instruction, and so on, then we have 
no basis for arbitrarily asserting that it suddenly has existential 
authority in telling me how to get saved from my sins. The Bible, and 
everything it contains, stand or fall together. My central interest in all 
this, from beginning to end, has been to be faithful to the Word of God, 
which throughout my life has been so faithful to me -- in rebuking me, 
teaching me, admonishing me, and showing me the way of salvation.

As I finish explaining this, I do need to note something about my manners 
here. If one of the non-Christians on this list were to invite me to 
dinner, I would not take an opportunity (just before desert) to stand on my 
chair and preach to all the people there. I honestly would behave myself, 
and would observe all the appropriate social graces. So why have I have 
been bringing the gospel of Christ and Him crucified into all my posts 
recently? Because that clearly has been the central issue in this 
controversy. I know no other way to respond to the horrendous and false 
accusations that have been brought against me and the congregation of 
faithful Christians that I have the privilege of serving. We are not under 
attack because we are racists. You all know that. We are not under attack 
because the conference was on slavery. You all know that too. We are under 
attack because we were lied about, and we were lied about because we 
believe that Scripture shows us the way to true life. Scripture invites us, 
as the first step toward this life, to repent of our attachment to all the 
dull and insipid maxims that the dead idols of modernity produce.

That is why I decided that I was going to respond to every lie with the 
Truth. If folks want to use their energy up in pelting me with the dead 
cats they have collected, then I will take that opportunity to invite them 
to come to Jesus Christ. Call it a point of personal privilege. At that 
aforementioned dinner party, if my non-Christian host wanted to talk about 
the Mariners, then I would be happy to do that. If he wanted to talk about 
the aquifer levels, I would do that too. I would not say, "Hmmm. That 
reminds me of the water of life . . ." But if he accused me of killing 
babies, selling crack cocaine, hating Jews, and so forth, my response would 
be very simple -- and I would not be the one upsetting the decorum of the 
evening. My response would consistently be, "Come, and welcome, to Jesus 
Christ. But you have to leave behind the dead cats."

Cordially,


Douglas Wilson