[Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash
keely emerinemix
kjajmix1 at msn.com
Tue Jun 13 13:25:27 PDT 2006
I appreciate Douglas Hunter's wise comments below, as well as Joe's point
that we consider Doug Wilson separately from those unfortunate enough to be
shepherded by him.
I had coffee yesterday with five warm, intelligent, delightful women from
Christ Church. They have every reason to presume that I am as bad and mean
as some have depicted me, and yet they've decided to do what mature women do
-- spend some time with me and find out for themselves. And I am grateful
for the invitation extended, the warmth expressed, and the trust presumed; I
hope I reciprocated with the same warmth and trust. I have absolutely
nothing against them and would welcome a friendship with any of them -- as
much as I grieve the bad theology they've embraced, or are willing to
endure, and the hyper-patriarchal and hierarchical worldview it produces
that, I'm convinced, is as bad for men as it is for women.
But I would imagine they grieve, or are at least puzzled by, my Biblical
feminism, outspokenness against Doug Wilson, and my sharp theological
disagreements with Christ Church. That's fair. In fact, that's great. I
only hope that we can discuss it more. I have no doubt at all that it would
be a loving, reasonable, intelligent and stimulating discussion, because
these women, like most of the folks at Christ Church, are reasonable,
intelligent and sincere in their faith. For every unloving Kirk man, many
of whom we're all acquainted with here, I know there are several more, men
and women, who love Christ and are willing to love me in His name. I feel
the same way.
That doesn't negate my concern and anger about what I know of Wilson's world
and worldview. In fact, it heightens it. I love a good roll in the
theological hay of debate, but what's of real consequence is that real
people -- good people -- get hurt by bad theology and worse conduct.
Conscience compels me, then, to defend them and to defend the Gospel -- to
offer, with gentleness and respect, a reason for the hope that lies within
me; further paraphrasing 1 Peter 3:15, I might add that I hope to offer a
reason for the anger and concern that lies within me regarding the Kirk, and
I hope that I've done it with gentleness and respect to the sincere and
offered clear, truth-building rebuke when needed.
And so, I'd like to publicly thank my friend Heather Wilson and her
sister-in-law, Meredith Wilson, for a delightful morning yesterday. (And
it wasn't just the delicious coffee cake and great coffee, either!)
keely
From: second plank <secondplank at yahoo.com>
To: Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net>, Michael <metzler at moscow.com>
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Cult Fantasy News Flash
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Your timing on this one Joe is impeccable. You got it
out just ahead of Wilson's latest blog, and true to
Wilson form he speaks as though he and his church are
one. Some great comments so far in response.
http://dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2444
Thanks Joe for your clarification about separating
comments about Doug Wilson from Christ Church. In
spite of our political and philosophical differences
of opinion, one thing I think that we can all agree on
is that Doug Wilson is not Christ Church and Christ
Church is not Doug Wilson. I think we all know that
there's a lot of very fine people at Christ Church who
would never conduct themselves in the dishonest and
unchristian ways that Doug Wilson has. We may question
their wisdom and may even view Kirkers as being
gullible for remaining in a cultish environment, but
it would be unreasonable to assume that Kirkers are of
the same poor character as Wilson, just as it would be
unfair to stereotype them as "Androids" merely because
they may still be a bit naive. Give it some time and
I'm sure that too will change.
Douglas Hunter
--- Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
> The funny thing, Michael, is that I was going to use
> you as an example to support my claim that CC is not
> a cult! I don't think that you would have joined CC
> and stayed with them as long as you did if it was a
> cult. But I'm no expert on cults, so maybe I don't
> know what I'm talking about here.
>
> I want to separate criticisms of Wilson, et. al.
> from criticisms of the CC congregation. Many have
> suggested that local criticism of Wilson, et. al. is
> based in prejudice about their religious views and
> I'm sick of hearing that.
>
> Yes, I disagree with the religious views of most of
> the CC congregation but I disagree with many of your
> particular religious views, too. And when push comes
> to shove, we agree about more than we disagree about
> these issues. The same seems to be true with regard
> to the CC congregation, as well.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe Writes:
>
> FYI I do not think that CC is a 'cult.' The members
> of CC, in my opinion, do
> not exhibit cultish behavior. Just an observation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Me:
>
>
>
> This is a difficult and vexed issue, but I suspect
> it is primarily a
> semantic problem after debating this with folks who
> think CC is a cult and
> those who think it is not-I actually get a hard time
> from some X-Kirders
> when I say "cultish" instead of "outright cult." I
> have not seen what
> anticipated this post from you, but I wanted to take
> a quick jab at it: Most
> of those who claim that CC is a cult are those who
> have had first hand
> experience with Wilson, particularly after they
> became critical of him. The
> "cult" focus is on the nature of the leader's
> behavior, not on the behavior
> of the congregation. Even if we do focus on the
> congregation however, those
> who believe CC is a cult, see it as a cult "in the
> making." With respect to
> the general story line, or trajectory, I would have
> to agree with this
> analysis at this time. This could always change
> direction, particularly
> with the kind of publicity CC is receiving. CC is
> fairly new and it is not
> monolithic; but there is also a clear "inner/outer"
> reality within. There
> are those who sort of know that they are part of the
> "next reformation" and
> who implicitly pledge more loyalty to the leaders
> and attempt to see
> themselves as those who "get it," and there are
> those who simply attend
> regularly without much knowledge of what it is they
> are attaching themselves
> to (this is a rough distinction of course). As for
> Wilson's behavior, I
> think his eccentricities line up way to well with
> what I am finding in the
> "literature" on this. I'm fairly well convinced
> that if left to his own
> devices and without accountability, CC would be a
> clear sociological cult
> within time. This causes me and my wife more shame
> than anything else,
> since we were long term inner loyalists. We also
> feel a bit damaged, and we
> believe that many people have been very hurt over
> the last 15 years because
> of run of the mill "spiritual abuse." But this is
> where the semantic problem
> arises. Abuse of power or authority is everywhere.
> Spiritual abuse runs
> rampant in conservative, fundamentalist circles.
> And most of this parallels
> with typical patterns in the business world or in
> the home. We live in a
> world filled with oppression. There are many
> dragons to be slain out there,
> but I think it is most important to slay those
> dragons who present
> themselves as the bastion of freedom and
> accountability. My wife is reading
> another book on spiritual abuse right now, and it
> locates just this as the
> fiercest sort of sociological sub-group: those who
> present themselves as
> sufficiently accountable and free when they are
> really not.
>
>
>
> With that said, I would like to commend you in being
> judicial and careful on
> this, willing to defend CC where you see fit. I
> would be curious as to what
> you take to be cultish behavior from the typical
> layman however. I had
> friends of 10 years plus turn on me immediately
> without private concern was
> expressed at all towards me or my family as soon as
> I was identified as a
> mild critic of Doug Wilson (back in the old days
> when I was still mildly
> amenable to the fact that Wilson was just a bit
> skewed and not simply a
> typical, power hungry man, willing to exploit those
> around him-like most men
> would be apt to do if given such an unaccountable
> position of authority and
> the right sort of temperament).
>
>
>
> I should also note that CC is never able to present
> a persuasive, positive
> defence on this issue; in fact, I have argued a
> couple times at
> www.poohsthink.com <http://www.poohsthink.com/>
> that the nature CC's
> response to this criticism seems to always evidence
> a cultish existence.
> The response is irrelevant and smug, or simply
> changes the subject, or else
> CC offers a fully self-referential defense,
> disconnected from society's
> general perceptions about this issue.
>
>
>
> But I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this
> issue. I'm sure we all
> could use a bit more balance and insight from others
> right now.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Metzler
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step
> Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list