[Vision2020] RE: Rose's posting

[amy smoucha]

David,

Even more scary than Wilson's associations are your hair-splitting attempts 
to make his words more palatable.  Thank you for posting the whole letter.  
The omitted sections demonstrate more clearly what Rose concluded.

I appreciate your unintended honesty.

Amy Smoucha


----Original Message Follows----
From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
To: <DonaldH675@aol.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] RE:  Rose's posting
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:42:35 -0500

Visionaries and Rose,

-
Rose adds the following post script to her last LOS posting:
   PS  I suppose anyone who wishes to read more about Doug's position on the 
LOS organization  – which he “mildly supports” but did not join - 
could stop by the Christ Church office or email Doug directly and ask for a 
copy.



Or, Rose could just post it if she has it, or ask the brave (how so?, I 
would ask) contributor send it to her and post it.  Or I could do it.  Lest 
anyone think I am brave, the information is "free".  Though I, speaking for 
myself, would not have posted the whole letter  since it was not sent to 
"everyone".   However, having had this much published, however it would 
probably give the reader a more complete picture of Doug's point of the 
letter.





[Rose characterizes Doug's letter thusly:  In a heroic effort to explain the 
League of the South to his followers, Doug wrote this explanatory note.   
Let's see....]



Kirkers,

In the midst of our current controversy with our local intoleristas, some of 
you many have wondered about the League of the South, and what our 
connection to that organization actually is. Steve Wilkins, whom you know, 
has served as a director for the organization. When the group was first 
formed Steve told them a couple things that bear on our situation here. 
First, he said the group had to be explicitly Christian or he could not be 
associated with it. He also told them that it could not be racist in any 
way, and if anything like that showed up, he was out of there. Steve has 
recently resigned from their board of directors, but *not* because there was 
any problem with the conditions above.



[This is the rest of the letter, the remainder of the body of the letter 
does not say anything not presented in the "free information" section]



Rather, it was the result of changing priorities. Some of the thinking about 
those changing priorities might be made clearer through something I recently 
wrote on the subject, which I have included for you below. Just consider 
this free information, and if you can use it, great.


If At First, You Don't Secede . . .
One response to the League of the South has the effect of making any desire 
for secession for cultural reasons look ludicrous. Now I am not a member of 
the League, and Steve has recently resigned from the board of directors 
because his priorities have been shifting. But let me say this to support 
the League (mildly), even though I do differ with them. I am not a member of 
the League because I believe that the severe problems this nation has do not 
admit of a political or cultural solution. There is no way out for us apart 
from a massive reformation of liturgy and doctrine in the evangelical church 
nationwide. That is where I want to concentrate all my energies, and that is 
what I understand Steve as also wanting to do. I believe that the League's 
attempts to stop what is happening are in the same category as the attempts 
being made by Focus on the Family to get prayer back in the government 
schools.

But let me defend them to this extent. They are not wanting to maintain a 
distinct Southern heritage because they are afraid that some Yankee judge 
will outlaw grits. Please note where we actually are as a nation--just a few 
weeks away from the full faith and credit clause of the mangled 
Constitution, courtesy of Massachusetts, being used to impose homosexual 
marriages on Alabama, Virginia, Idaho, and all the cities of the plain. 
Secession over such a cause is impossible (because of the current impotence 
of the church). But if the church were not impotent, and if a state were 
able to successfully secede from the Union rather than have such an 
abomination imposed upon them, it would be entirely noble. Not only would it 
be worth doing, it would be obligatory.

But the League of the South should not be anticipating large successes in 
their fight for traditional culture because the carrier of all culture is 
cultus, the worship of God. Because our general evangelical cultus is both 
inane and idolatrous, there will be no salvaging of our culture in the next 
few weeks. Reformation of the church is what we need to be eating, drinking, 
and breathing--all the time. As for the folks in the League of the South and 
Focus on the Family, God bless them. I wish them the best, and I understand 
why they want to get out there and make a direct challenge to the abortion 
culture, the homosexual culture, and so forth. But they will continue to 
fail because so many Christians still refuse to acknowledge Christ's 
ownership of their babies, refuse to bring them up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord, refuse to teach them the glories of celebrating the 
Lord's Day, and refuse to conduct their worship services as though our 
triune God is holy, holy, holy.

The folks in the League are good diagnosticians. But they are not in a 
position to pursue the remedy, which will only be found if judgment begins 
with the household of God.






If I wanted an "explanation" of the league of the South, never mind an 
heroic one, I wouldn't be happy with that one.  It was, in fact, an 
explanation of the fundamental futility of the means used by that group.  
Fundamental message:  "Don't like the way things are?  Worship God, and live 
out the gospel."  I would infer (which may not be what was implied) that 
Rose's anger is that it is not condemned the way she would condemn it.  And 
also, now that Steve Wilkins is not a member of the group (as Doug never 
was), the underlying inference, (which again may not be what was implied) I 
get is that Steve should've left earlier, and for different reasons, so we 
can keep the LOS thing going when dealing with Doug.  But note the thrust of 
the criticism is with the evangelical church.  I'd have a difficult time 
figuring that out from Rose's characterization.





I would add that unless Rose got her statement of Doug's mild support from 
another document then here is where she got it in this document:


"....   But let me say this to support the League (mildly), even though I do 
differ with them.   ....."



Whereas Rose writes:

         ....Doug's position on the LOS organization  – which he “mildly 
supports” but did not join - could ....



This may be a difference without a difference but there is a difference in 
context and flavor between the two statements.  It would have been fairer to 
provide the reader with context.  In another context people on this list 
might call that purposeful twisting of words. Not me (seriously).  But I do 
think it is sloppy usage and and a less than 100% faithful transposition of 
information.  Such is the nature of even non-lying words.  Let me stipulate 
that my letter might be characterized the same way (though I don't see it 
now).  But I'm *not* trying to lie.





Probably Rose wasn't lying, either.  I believe her general claims of 
honesty, since as a Christian I'm commanded to assume the best, even though 
I can't swear to the absolute truth (hence the "probably") about unknowns 
(like people's hearts).  And,  from other correspondence with Rose, this is 
and easy, and not grudging belief.  I say this even in the face of 
contradictions and omissions.  But the fact is, from Rose's post the reader 
does not have all the context that the reader of Doug's letter would have 
dad.   Facts, and truth, when dealing with conversations writings etc,  are 
tricky, often inconvenient, things and require a lot of research to get a 
good picture.  Or at least of a lot of research to make sure the negative 
conclusions are indeed true before publishing them.



In like manner I would ask if Rose has done sufficient investigation to see 
whether the "lies" she sees coming out of Christ Church are really lies, or 
insufficient information to reconcile apparently contradictory information.  
Sounds like an opportunity for thorough research and presentation of all the 
facts.



Finally, this would be a good place to ask Rose, what are her sources for 
"covenantal lying"?  Sure, there are examples of deception in scripture 
which are commended.  The mid-wives lying to Pharaoh attempting to thwart 
his campaign of infanticide, for example.  Contemporarily put, this would be 
the "No, no Jew's in my attic" behavior in WWII.  (And, if more proof were 
needed, this was done by those progressive Europeans).  Beyond that I have 
never heard of the term prior to her reference and can't find this specific 
term on Google (this and a phone book are very handy research tools).  How 
about a few references, Rose?  Such thinking might be defended scriptural, 
or need to be condemned as unscriptural license, but it would depend on 
having of more of the W's than "What".



Not "covenantally lying"  (unless, I suppose, I am).



Cheers,

David Douglas

_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. 
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx