[Vision2020] Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle
Mike Lawyer
mike_l@moscow.com
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:45:30 -0800
Dear Visionaries,
Ive been kind of busy lately and so, while Ive been reading the postings
on this list, I havent had time to respond or to write.
All this shrillness about Doug Wilson reminds me of a passage of Scripture
that I would like to share with you all (or is that yall?).
It comes from the first chapter of Pauls letter to the Corinthians (verses
17-25).
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom
of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which
are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the
wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the
prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after
that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews
require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than
men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Much of the criticism against Doug Wilson and the members of Christ Church
come because the message he/they preach (the real message, not the smoke
that keeps blowing) has to do with loving and submitting to God through the
Lord Jesus Christ. This message is foolishness to those who do not know or
love God (those who are perishing).
To the man who, while he knows God exists through his creation, chooses to
rebel against him anyway, hearing about a man who was God 2000 years ago
makes no sense and so sounds foolish. It makes no sense to imagine that a
man who died actually rose from the dead 3 days later. It makes no sense to
think that that same man should be worshipped and adored because of his
death. It seems foolish to give your life to an idea that this same man/God
rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and is Lord of lords and King of
kings.
These facts are the basic thing were really arguing about. This is the
Gospel. The funny thing is that Gospel means good news. And to the man who
believes it, it is the best news he could ever imagine. This is because the
reason Jesus died on the cross was to bring us into fellowship with the God
weve been thumbing our noses at all these years. And living in fellowship
with the God who made us is the most freeing thing we can do. Its similar,
but not nearly at the same level, to taking your car to the maker (and
getting him to work on it for free) rather than having the high school kid
next door work on it.
These other issues; slavery, racism, heresy, boycotts, controversy in
general are all smoke blowing in the wind. This is shown to be the case when
a guy gives an illustration and something in that illustration is jumped on
as if it were the point. It isnt. The point is that the wonderful news of
Jesus Christ, who died so that men might live, is foolishness to those who
are perishing. This is the real issue.
In every age, when men with chests stand for the truth of the Gospel those
to whom it is foolishness oppose it and the man. Since they cant come up
with anything wrong with the message, they make things up about the
messenger. Ive known Doug Wilson for over 30 years. I knew him when we
served together in the Navy. The pagans didnt like him any better there
than you all like him here. And the Christians didnt defend him any better
than they do today. I was one of the founding elders in Christ Church when
it was Faith Fellowship, then Community Evangelical Fellowship. The pagans
didnt like him or us then either. I went off to seminary and kept in touch
with him and the ministries here in Moscow while I served as the pastor in
other churches. Now Im back here in Moscow and serve as an elder in Christ
Church. The pagans are still singing the same song for the same reasons.
They hate anyone who would say out loud what God says in their Bibles. The
LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his
soul hates (Psalm 11:5). The Gospel is foolishness to those who are
perishing. But to those who have tasted that the Lord is good, it is
wonderful life eternal.
Have a great day.
Mike Lawyer
Assistant to Douglas Wilson
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
Behalf Of Carl Westberg
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:26 AM
To: sslund@adelphia.net; vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle
As one who has taken his fellow liberals to task for boycotting CC
affiliated businesses, I find Saundra's revelations troubling. I was
unaware of these stories. I have fond memories of the Card Farm, and
purchased more than a few cards that Mr. Wilson no doubt would have found
objectionable. What may be a disgusting card to him may well be a great
source of amusement to me. To think that there would be an attempt on his
part to prevent my access to such material is most uncool. And as for
Playboy, a magazine I've read a few times, (really, I just read them,
honest), to read of organized boycotts against stores that sell them is
quite bothersome. I still do not support organized boycotts of businesses
associated with Christ Church. As a matter of fact, I've been known to have
a cup of coffee or a brew in Bucer's myself. I do have to concur with
Saundra's conclusion of "double standard". I was Christmas shopping at a
bookstore in the Palouse Mall last month, and saw that Playboy and other
such magazines were for sale. They were completely covered, save for the
titles, and were located well beyond the reach of children. These magazines
are also perfectly legal, as is the selling and purchasing of them. Would
such a store be a potential target for a boycott? I hope not.
Carl Westberg Jr.
>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund@adelphia.net>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Boycott Redux . . . or Pot Calling Kettle
>Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:07:59 -0800
>
>Visionaries:
>
>I, for one, have been incredibly annoyed by Wilson et al's continued
>whining
>about supposed "boycotts" of CC-affiliated businesses. As was discussed
>many times in this forum, there is/was no organized boycott but rather
>individuals making personal conscientious spending choices, which is
>something we're still free to do in the good old United States of America.
>Among others, both Melynda Huskey (11/8/2003) and Laurie Danahy (on
>11/9/2003) did excellent jobs of clarifying the difference.
>
>Nonetheless, those involved in the Wilson cult have continued cries of
>"Foul!" with respect to non-existent boycotts:
>"To top it all off, local businesses have been boycotted . . ." (Greg
>Dickison, 12/31/2003)
>"Lots of proud boycotts of businesses owned by people who went to Christ
>Church . . . (hatesploch.net, 1/22/2004)
>
>But, for the sake of argument, let's say that individual conscientious
>spending choices to not patronize businesses advocating anti-choice,
>anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism ideologies amount to boycotts. OK.
>
>According to Wilson et al, those of us choosing not to patronize businesses
>with which we have HUGE ideological differences makes us "intolerant."
>
>Why? What is it that makes us "intolerant" sinners when we make personal
>conscientious spending choices but makes people like Gary Greenfield and
>Heidi Scheibe saints when they organize formal boycotts, circulate
>petitions, and threaten pickets???
>
>As history, before his connection with Bucer's and Zume's, Gary Greenfield,
>founder & then-president of a local chapter of American Family Association
>(the organization we can thank for the wording of Moscow's ridiculous
>so-called nudity ordinance) decided that the Lewiston-Clarkston area had a
>problem with pornography and organized *two* boycotts four years apart to
>target businesses that sold or rented what he defined as pornography
>(including Playboy magazine). The following information comes from a
>Lewiston Morning Tribune article by Mohsin Askari entitled "Porn Fighter
>Goes Back on the Warpath" (3/11/1990; 1B):
>"Within a month, Greenfield said, he hopes to have another boycott campaign
>under way and he has targeted 18 businesses at Lewiston-Clarkston which
>operate about 25 stores. He intends to extend the boycott to other towns
>in
>the region also. "We hope that a boycott will be sufficient, but I
>wouldn't
>rule out picketing,'' he said. . . Greenfield, who last year set up
>affiliation with the American Family Association as its Lewiston-Clarkston
>chapter, said his organization will provide ''concerned citizens'' with a
>list of stores and a boycotting strategy. . . "Those magazines, they
>promote
>statutory rape. They promote incest. They have encouraged that sex at any
>age is healthy. They have sought to tear down every traditional Christian
>value that promotes the typical family,'' Greenfield said. "That kind of
>philosophy contributed to teenage pregnancy and sexual disease, like
>AIDS.''
>***He does not want his money to support businesses which sell magazines
>that support such philosophies.***"
>[Note: emphasis is mine. SL]
>
>So, what's the difference? Those of us exercising personal conscientious
>spending choices not to patronize businesses which espouse (among other
>things) anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and anti-feminism philosophies
>*haven't* organized? Our scope is *too* small? We've *not* threatened to
>picket?
>
>I don't understand . . . can someone please explain the difference?
>
>Oh, wait . . . maybe Jim Fisher already figured it out. According to his
>editorial in the Lewiston Morning Trib (How to Fight Lewiston-Clarkston's
>Town Bully; 3/13/1990; 8A), Greenfield claimed his earlier boycott a
>success. Over time, however, some businesses backslid, so he was again
>organizing a boycott to get them to toe the line. According to Fisher's
>editorial:
>"He [Greenfield] says Playboy is especially dangerous because it has
>advocated legalization of drugs. As have former Secretary of State George
>Schultz, Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke and William F. Buckley, editor of the
>conservative political magazine National Review. Is that on Greenfield's
>list? If it isn't maybe it should be, because it's clear Greenfield isn't
>declaring war only on pornography. He's declaring war on incorrect ideas. .
>. "
>
>Well, never fear, Doug Wilson came to Greenfield's defense with his own
>editorial four days later (LMT; If Porn Boycott is Out, What About Others?;
>3/17/1990; 12A)! Wilson decided Greenfield was "someone who is trying hard
>to defend people" for his willingness "to organize a boycott of those
>establishments which promote the degradation of women." Wilson took great
>exception to "bully" being used to describe Greenfield & his tactics, and
>Wilson "examined" what he perceived to be the Trib's real objection to
>Greenfield's boycott:
>"There are two elements to Greenfield's efforts; his opposition to porn,
>and
>his willingness to use a boycott as a means of persuasion. . . At first
>glance, it might look as though they [LMT] believe boycotts are a bullying
>tactic, and unfit for use in a democratic society. But this is not true.
>The
>Tribune would defend the use of boycotts, provided the target was
>ideologically suitable.
> For example, would the Tribune identify Martin Luther King as a
>''bully''
>because of his successful use of boycott in the pursuit of his goals? . . .
>It means that Greenfield is to be opposed, not because he is willing to
>organize boycotts, but because his target is pornography. If Greenfield
>were
>boycotting something else more fashionable, like stores carrying white
>supremacist stuff, then it would be no problem. But he isn't, so there is.
> You see, if a store carries magazines which treat blacks and Jews in a
>degrading way, Greenfield would be a ''good citizen'' and ''civil rights
>activist'' if he organized a boycott. But if stores treat women in a
>degrading way, the Tribune thunders against the town bully. . .
> So then, boycotts are all right provided the target is a good one. Porn
>must not be a good target, even though it is degrading to women. Therefore,
>those down at the Trib must want this type of material around. They have
>chosen sides: they want to defend those who degrade women, and attack those
>who honor women. . . ''
>
>A pretty simplistic, not to mention relativistic, way of looking at things,
>huh?
>
>So, it's OK for Wilson et al to support an *organized* boycott of
>businesses
>who rent/sell material *they've* decided should be off-limits, but it makes
>those of us who personally choose conscience spending philosophies
>"intolerant"?
>
>What's that saying . . . something about what's sauce for the goose is
>sauce
>for the gander?
>
>And, it doesn't stop there: Heidi Scheibe, another of Wilson's flock, took
>exception with products sold at the Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall in
>late 1990. According to an AP story carried by the LMT on 12/2/1990:
>"***A group of fundamentalist Christians is taking a Moscow card shop to
>task with a boycott***, petitions and complaints to police about the sale
>of
>allegedly obscene greeting cards and other material. . . Heidi Scheibe of
>Moscow filed a written complaint with local police, saying three cards and
>a
>book sold at the Card Farm violate state obscenity laws. She contends the
>cards and book promote casual sex by the young, debauchery by adults and an
>increase in broken marriages, single mothers and abortions."
>[Note: emphasis is mine. SL]
>
>Never fear, once again Wilson jumped forward to support his follower with
>his "Obscenity on Display at Palouse Empire Mall" column in the LMT on
>12/1/1990 (6A):
>"The Card Farm is a shop in the Palouse Empire Mall in Moscow. . . But
>unlike respectable shops and stores in that mall, this particular store
>sells gross and obscene material. . . For those parents who are trying to
>impart basic moral values to their kids, the store is a moral nuisance.
>For
>the past few months, a number of people have been seeking a way to resolve
>this problem quietly. They were organized by Heidi Scheibe, a concerned
>Moscow resident. . . . So this last Thursday, Mrs. Scheibe filed a
>complaint
>with the Moscow Police Department. ***The Card Farm is in violation of the
>Idaho Code at several points, particularly with regard to the law
>protecting
>minors from obscenity. . . Public congratulations are in order for Heidi
>Scheibe.***"
>[Note: again, the emphasis is mine. SL]
>
>Ahhh . . . so when someone organizes a boycott that supports Wilson's
>notion
>of Good & Bad, Right & Wrong, Moral & Immoral, Tolerant & Intolerant, then
>they deserve public kudos for being "concerned," but when those of us with
>philosophies differing from Wilson et al's make personal conscientious
>spending choices, then we are "intolerant." Clear as mud, don't you think?
>
>As a side note, it's a good thing Wilson kept his day job because his
>understanding of Idaho Code & obscenity was woefully lacking according to
>an
>AP wire story:
>"Three cards at a local gift shop that offended a Moscow woman cannot be
>considered legally obscene, Moscow City Attorney Mark Moorer has concluded.
>. . the cards sold at The Card Farm in the Palouse Empire Mall are within
>the city's community standards. . . Last week, Heidi Scheibe of Moscow
>complained to police about cards at the store she said depicted sex acts or
>obscene words. She linked such materials to broken homes, unwanted
>pregnancies and mass murders . . . "
>(LMT; Gift Shop Cards Ruled Not Obscene; 12/6/1990; 1C)
>
>So, please remind me again which group is supposedly intolerant???
>
>The more I read, the more I become convinced that Wilson truly deserves a
>title that seems to have been overlooked: he's the King of the
>Double-Standard!
>
>
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>-Edmund Burke
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx
_____________________________________________________
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