[Vision2020] Doug Wilson

[keely emerinemix]

I echo most of what Andreas says, and I'll repeat my thanks to him for his 
clarity and to Chas for his sincere effort to understand Wilson.  In doing 
so, I'll also reaffirm that I believe Wilson prevaricates -- tones down his 
views -- when he's meeting with "outsiders."  That way, he can not only 
convince the hearer that "secondhand information" about him is wrong, but 
that it's consistently wrong in ways that can only lead the logical thinker 
into believing that he is being persecuted.

Again, why in the world would he bother?  Frankly, enough of Moscow's 
"liberals" think the whole thing is just too weird, as are many things 
religious in nature, and that it's not "community affirming" to criticize 
him.  Conservatives, particularly conservative evangelicals, may wince at 
what he and other Christ Church leaders write, say, and do, but I'm not 
aware of any, other than myself and Wilson's own brother, who have publicly 
challenged him in the five years I've been here, despite clear Biblical 
admonishment to confront and correct errors of doctrine and practice in the 
public square -- not differences, not debatable shades of orthodoxy, but 
error and conduct that compromise the witness of Christ's people.  
Libertarian types can wallow in Christ Church's jeremiads against public 
schools and other government institutions and know that those beliefs, while 
not religious in and of themselves, are shared with and among Wilson's 
people to a degree that far surpasses simple agreement on public policy.  
And those who wish we could all just get along, who wish nobody would ever 
be mean again, ever, seem curiously unable to recognize the stench of 
meanspiritedness that wafts from Anselm House, NSA, Christ Church, etc., 
while becoming faint at the scent of contrariness from Christ Church 
critics.  Really, why should Wilson even bother trying to rehab his image?   
He's got most of Moscow befuddled, bored, or buoyed by now; an interview 
with Chas shouldn't result in a fullcourt press of polished PR from our 
favorite paleo-Confederate, paedobaptistic, paedocommunionist, 
Reconstructionist slayer of sodomy in the public square.

And yet . . . we hear a newly-minted version of the Difficulties of Being 
Doug, and enough folks will buy it that "the Persecuted One" will remain 
unmolested.

I agree with Chas; Doug Wilson is no Fred Phelps.  Phelps is a hideous human 
being, to be sure, but his stupidity and, frankly, his inability to "work 
the media" will keep him marginalized, something akin to road kill -- 
curious, horrifying, sickening, and then fairly well forgotten.  I don't 
think Doug Wilson is  as full of raw, naked hatred as Phelps, and I don't 
think Phelps possesses even a tenth of Wilson's intelligence.  I do, 
however, think that the danger of Doug Wilson is this:  he and his 
leadership will continue to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ as odious to 
Moscow residents as the worst of Wilson's actions -- support of slavery, of 
stoning homosexuals, of the Confederacy, of women's complete subjugation to 
their husbands, of any number of things that offend various clearthinking 
neighbors of ours.  He will encourage the metastasizing of his beliefs and 
practices through his various "outreaches" without any particular "reaching 
out" to those around him in genuine Christian love.  He will exercise 
significant control over the weaker members of his congregation and will 
make use of the skills and efforts of the stronger ones to elevate and 
protect his position of unchecked influence, and he will continue, without 
any apparent shame, to insist that the Gospel is all about quality food and 
wine in Sabbath-keeping, a so-called "benign" patriarchy in the family, the 
singing of Psalms, and the gathering together of the exceedingly 
well-polished saints, many of whom spend an enormous amount of their 
"soapbox" time in the public square belittling those outside the confines of 
the CREC-formation they've built for themselves.

On a related note, this week I said that I think Doug Farris is acting like 
an ass on Vision 2020, and maybe that sounds "unChristian" to some of you.  
Fair enough, although I consider it a needed public rebuke to another 
believer for sins committed publicly.  I'll reserve that kind of language 
for those who claim the name of Christ and yet defame Him with every public 
utterance; I can't apologize, because "ass" fairly well sums up Farris' 
actions.  I try to avoid gratuitous insults and vulgarity -- I won't call 
someone an a--hole -- but the Gospel of Christ means everything to me.  I 
absolutely reject imprecatory prayer against nonbelievers as well as against 
believers, but for people who uphold the tradition of calling for God to 
bash the teeth out of their presumed enemies, the proper and judicious use 
of "ass" really ought not be at all objectionable.

keely

From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
CC: "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Doug Wilson Interview
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:26:28 -0800

Chas --

Doug is lying to you. He does this a lot.

He claims, on a regular basis, that he doesn't support the execution
of homosexuals (except when he does), or that he doesn't support
slavery (except when he does). When he does this, he's not doing it
because he actually, genuinely believes these things -- in fact, he
tells his supporters something entirely contraditory. He tells you
these things because he is practicing taqiyya; he believes that it is
acceptable to lie to non-believers to get them off his back.

You interviewed him in good faith, Chas, and I believe that everything
you've done is in good faith. But I don't believe he responded in good
faith; he never does. Take, for instance, his position on slavery --
if you read some of his racist supporters (try Harry Seabrook and
Badonicus, if you can stomach them), they bought in, up until his
position on slavery made things at home very uncomfortable. Then --
surprise! -- his position flip-flopped; he claimed that slavery was an
evil that should always have been eliminated, despite never having
said that before. Further, he claimed that two plus two had always
been five; that he had always said that slavery was an evil that would
eventually disappear.  Why, I might ask, might the "most harmonious
multi-racial society ever conceived" suffer the judgement of an angry
God? Was there something wrong with it?

You'll find the same thing with his position on the role of women. In
public, he mouths the politically correct generalities which he is
required to -- mutual submission -- and he did so for you, enough to
convince you. Were you aware, though, of Her Hand in Marriage, where
he argues for, effectively, arranged marriage? Or Reforming Marriage,
where he calls for the utter subjugation of a wife to her husband?
What he tells you -- what he tells to anyone outside the Reformed
community -- is different from what he tells the people who already
believe what he believes. It is not acceptable that women pass as
chattel to the hands of their fathers to the hands of their husbands.

You'll see the same in his teachings about homosexuality.
Credenda/Agenda calls openly for the execution for all sins ending in
"y"**. He preaches fire and brimstone against gays when speaking to
the choir, not, I think, because he feels any passion against them,
but because the more troglodytic members of his congregation do. When
he realizes that calling for deaths might be inappropriate, as when
speaking to the Daily News, he simply claims that banishment might be
an acceptable alternative. For those that might be someday subject to
one of those edicts (and, until two years ago, *were* subject to such
edicts), this is, of course, not an acceptable alternative.

You're right; he's not Fred Phelps. If you read "Raised in Fear"
(written by one of Phelps' sons), you will find in Phelps a man who
has managed to tyrannize his entire family. Phelps is also a
self-limiting idiot -- like most cults, he urges his supporters to
take actions that alienate them from the people around them: not to
convert the unbelievers, but to convince his believers that the world
around them is irredeemably corrupt. Doug does the same, though not to
the same degree, and he is not stupid.

Doug has tyrannized no one, but has produced and disseminated a
blueprint for tyrannizing women, non-Christians, and the GLBT
community. People read him. They take him seriously. And while I've
spoken with Doug, I've met him in person, and I don't believe he's a
bottomless cesspit of evil, I think that he is very much a man in the
role of Calvin or Lenin -- an earnest utopian who sees his own
impulses toward power, and against accountability, as being the
urgings of a higher power, rather than his own worst nature.

I think he believes. I think that he thinks that what he believes is
important, and worth any effort, even deception, to protect. I think
this is no excuse.

-- ACS

* Excluding, as far as I can tell, simony and usury.

On 1/21/07, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 1/20/07, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are an incredible number of subjects about which I think it is
> > possible to for reasonable people to have reasonable disagreements.
> > "Whether or not all homosexuals should be executed" is not one of
> > them; "whether or not slavery is morally acceptable" is also not one
> > of them. Simply because public disapproval of homosexuality is
> > somewhat more socially appropriate in America does not suddenly make
> > advocacy of genocide into a subject about which it is reasonable to
> > disagree -- which is why I think that attempts at this sort of
> > outreach are incredibly wrongheaded. Attempts to meet Christ Church
> > halfway only result in a halfway that is equally morally unacceptable.
>
>If Doug Wilson/Christ Church/New St Andrews were Fred Phelps, then I
>would agree.  If Doug Wilson/Christ Church/New St Andrews were
>sincerely campaigning for the execution of homosexuals, then I would
>agree.  However, execution of homosexuals isn't on the agenda at
>Christ Church, even if individual members might wish that it were.  A
>few members do not an entire body make.
>
>*******************************************************
>Here is an extract from the interview concerning homosexuality:
>*******************************************************
>
> > You believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Do you believe that
> > homosexuality deserves greater condemnation than other sins?
>Well, of course, yes and no. I believe that homosexual behavior is worse
>than cheating at pinochle. So in that sense, yes. I don't believe that
>all sins are equal. At the Last Day, God will judge all men outside of
>Christ according to their works, which presumably means something other
>than making no distinctions between various sins at all. Homosexual
>behavior is a very serious sin, according to St. Paul in Romans 1. But,
>having said this, in another very important sense, my answer to this
>question would be no, and I believe this answer addresses the real point
>of your question. I believe that there are any number of sins that are
>comparable to homosexuality with regard to their gravity -- in the same
>league, for various reasons. I would say heterosexual adultery would be
>one example. I believe that bestiality and child molestation would be 
>worse.
>
>I believe that this is consistent with what Scripture teaches. So
>someone with a homosexual orientation (and homosexual temptations) could
>be a member of Christ Church in good standing, and not be hassled by
>anybody. The problem is this: while I believe that adultery and sodomy
>are comparable (both could bring about the death penalty in time of the
>Old Testament), the heterosexual still has a lawful outlet for sexual
>expression (marriage) while the homosexual does not. In our modern and
>egalitarian world (where all orgasms are considered to have been endowed
>by their creator with certain inalienable rights) this creates the
>perception of an equity problem. But whatever problem this is, it is not
>caused by any belief of mine that homosexual sin is the worst possible sin.
>
>*******************************************************
>Here the extract ends
>*******************************************************
>
>These aren't the words of a man seeking the death penalty for
>homosexuals.  Again, I generally prefer to be charitable.  I'm going
>to take Doug Wilson at his word, unless his actions prove otherwise.
>
> > I share one belief with Christ Church: that what we hold to be true
> > has consequences. I can be friendly, individually, with the members of
> > Christ Church, and, frankly, I think people *should*. I also think
> > "Hitler Youth" is a bit of a stretch (though I might not if it were my
> > particular execution they were calling for). However, being personally
> > friendly doesn't make Doug's brand of Christian dominionism something
> > that doesn't demand to be exposed, and doesn't make his million-dollar
> > religious empire something that doesn't deserve to be financially
> > starved out of Moscow.
>
>So, you are saying that, because you find the tenets of the Wilson
>empire objectionable, it needs to be driven out of town?  This amazes
>me.  Let me give you a list of the things I find objectionable:
>
>1.  Parents who don't understand the intellectual decay that results
>from allowing their children to watch a single episode of Big Brother.
>  Their children should be taken away.
>
>2.  The whole transubstantiation thing with Roman Catholics.
>Ritualistic Cannibalism. Yuck. Drive them out of town.
>
>3.  Smokers.  Where should I have to smell their stinky
>clothing/hair/skin/breath when we are sharing public space?  Kick them
>all out of Moscow!
>
>4.  Flags.  The pledge.  Patriotic jingoism and brainwashing should
>have went out with the Nazis.  Burn all flags and forbid their future
>display.    Outlaw the pledge.
>
>Of course, I don't really want to ban any of these things, even though
>all of them fill me with puzzlement/amusement/contempt.  Ditto NASCAR,
>American Idol, American football, shopping channels.
>
>I would labor greatly to drive a Fred Phelps-like congregation out of
>town, if we were so infested.  But we aren't.
>
>I lived for three days on a Hare Krishna ashram.  I've spent hundreds
>of hours in Hindu temples.  I've attended synagogues and mosques.
>I've been to Mormon services, attended services at JW Kingdom Halls,
>and enjoyed fellowship with Seventh Day Adventists.  I've befriended
>Satanists and Zoroastrians.  Yet I am a firm anti-theist.
>
>Moscow is a great town, but much of the animosity towards Christ
>Church is driven by personal quarrels, misunderstanding,
>overzealousness, and bigotry.  I disagree with virtually 100% of what
>Doug or Christ Church members hold sacred, but I still find the
>attacks against Christ Church hypocritical, divisive, and
>counter-productive.
>
>When people work together, it is so much easier to accomplish good.
>The childish squabbling that constantly erupts on Vision2020 will
>never heal, will never solve anything, and (I fear) will never cease.
>
>I suggest that we book a big hall and hold a big potluck that includes
>all of the prime movers in this drama.  Then invite the Jewish
>community, the Muslims, the Baha'is, etc., and share (in a
>non-confrontational, non-proselytizing manner) what we each believe in
>a series of workshops.  Expend this energy that is beneficial instead
>of wasteful.   We might come away better people.
>
>Is anybody interested in such an undertaking, with better
>organizational skills than me?
>
>Chas
>

_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline