Doug Wilson--a problem for a small town in Idaho?

Faith, I was able to find two sites that describe well the problems that Doug Wilson has caused for Moscow and the surrounding area.The first is a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. It provides background Mr. Wilson's neo-confederate agenda, and his building of an "empire" consisting of "a college, an array of lower schools, an entire denomination of churches, and more." It also documents his links to white supremacists. Much of the controversy surrounding Mr. Wilson results from the booklet he co-authored with Steve Wilkins, Southern Slavery: As It Was (this appears to be the entire text).The closing paragraphs of the SPLC report are interesting: Pullman, Washington is 8 miles west of Moscow, and is the home of Washington State University. This site provides a few more details of specific problems that Wilson has had with Moscow and the University of Idaho.Faith, you said that Doug Wilson's "teaching is excellent," and I said that I would address that as well. First I need to know what it is that you find excellent about Mr. Wilson's teaching.Cheers Faith. changed title of thread per OP's request - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-12-2006 01:55 PM

Just checking in with a reaction before actually investigating all your evidence if you don't mind.Oh wow, the ingenuity of the left never ceases to amaze me. They exceed themselves every time. "Neo-confederate agenda" my foot. Oh those poor poor liberals up there in Idaho just quaking in their boots because a Christian pastor exercises his right to free speech in their neighborhood. Oh Taliban Schmaliban. Get a grip. How much do you know of Wilson's preaching? This is nothing but a leftist smear campaign just to judge from the players in the game and the purple headline rhetoric being employed.There is no doubt in my mind that Wilson has NOTHING to do with white supremacists. *Sigh* I've heard him joke about how people react at conferences when they see he's from Idaho until they hear what he has to say. The Southern Poverty Law Center is famous among us conservatives for its far leftist views, like the ACLU. However, I will check out the accusations when I think I can stomach them.His teaching as I have encountered it is in his magazine, Credenda/Agenda, which, although quirky and even irreverent to the point of inspiring me to smack him one sometimes, is often very funny and always seems to come down to good Biblical theology in the end somehow or other. I've also heard bits and pieces of tapes of his conferences on American history -- unfortunately never heard a whole conference through -- and his defense of the Confederacy has surprised me, but he makes a good case it seems to me from what little I've heard of it. The North won after all, so its views have dominated, but the states' rights focus of the south would have been heard if they'd won. As I recall some of his focus was on the fact that the North had gone Deist and Unitarian, in other words heretical, by the time of the Civil War, while the South retained more true Christianity. But as I said I'm not really up on his views of the Civil War, having had only the briefest exposure to them. HOWEVER, I'm certain there's nothing racist about any of it. NOT AT ALL. That's just made up.He also surprised me with his view of the war with Mexico in which the US acquired much of the Southwest, and his denunciation of the idea of Manifest Destiny, saying that God is judging us for a basic breach of honesty and fairness toward Mexico. Now THAT point of view doesn't sit well with the conservatives -- I know, I've tried floating it on some conservative message boards -- not one positive response, all negative, including denunciations of Wilson's character as an obvious pawn of the left. Sigh. No need for me to smack him, he gets smacked coming and going it seems. Anyway, on that dubious transaction with Mexico he quoted a southern Senator of the time who denounced those who supported the dishonest dealings. Sorry, I'm not up on that bit of history either, not remembering the players. Maybe you do.He's got great ideas on education that have been catching on in churches around the country. He writes on sex roles from the Biblical point of view. I enjoy and appreciate all that. His friend and colleague Steve Schlissel who pastors a Brooklyn NY church and shares a basic theology with Wilson is even more fun to listen to than Wilson in my opinion, but that may be only because Schlissel gives so much Jewish background to the New Testament which is always fascinating.HOWEVER, I will dutifully read through your links eventually. I am not familiar with his views on slavery so maybe I'll be surprised when I read that link.But there's my semi-irresponsible first reaction for what it's worth.

I shouldn't have left out the link toward the article written by two University of Idaho professors that responds to inaccuracies in Southern Slavery: As It Was. Go to the bottom of this page to download the document Southern Slavery As It Wasn't: Coming to Grips with Neo-Confederate Historical Misinformation (in PDF format).

I don't mind at all. I probably won't reply here with anything of any substance though--I'll wait until you get the chance to read those articles. Perhaps you will change your mind on a few of your ideas about Mr. Wilson.I am encouraged Faith. You seem to dislike the terms "neo-confederate" and "white supremacist" (and the ideas behind those terms as well?). It seems that you and I do share some common ground.It is a little odd to me that you lump the SPLC with the ACLU. I can certainly envision situations where the two would be at odds with each other. I wonder if that has already occurred?Thanks for the link to Credenda/Addenda. I looked for it earlier, but didn't find it.Cheers Faith.

Schlissel is very interesting, and the Reconstructionists generally get a bad rap from people that misrepresent them. They are a little hyper-Calvinist in their theology, for my tastes, but the accusations against them are basically false.The thing about Reformed theology is a lot of it is good, but it's not the whole Bible, and in fact has many glaring weaknesses in leaving stuff out.But at the same time it is a detailed, comprehenvise theology of biblical truth, and has a whole lot of good in it.At one point, I thought of myself as Reformed in terms of accepting and advocating Reformed theology, but I realize I think much of the emphasis in some areas is misplaced, and I could never go along with all 5 points. I do think Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross was an atonement for the whole world's sins, not just the elect's sins.

It would be fun to talk to you about Schlissel and Reconstructionism (about which I know zip, and I haven't thought of either Wilson or Schlissel under that label), and Reformed theology, if there's any way to make a thread out of it some time. Not now. This thread is already more than I want to take on as I'm simultaneously trying to focus on an old Great Debate that has recently been resurrected. Got to pace all this somehow.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-06-2005 09:21 PM

Faith testifies:

quote:

---

As I recall some of his focus was on the fact that the North had gone Deist and Unitarian, in other words heretical, by the time of the Civil War, while the South retained more true Christianity. But as I said I'm not really up on his views of the Civil War, having had only the briefest exposure to them. HOWEVER, I'm certain there's nothing racist about any of it. NOT AT ALL. That's just made up.

---

So, Faith, you are suggesting that there is something in "true Christianity" that justifies holding my great-grandparents as slaves, raping and horse-whipping them, some spiritual truth that had been abandoned by the "Unitarian" heretics in the North? Or do you believe that the horrors of slavery were "just made up"?

Huh? That twisted non sequitur and insinuating personal accusation does not deserve an answer.

This sly piece of ad hominem reveals your true colors I believe.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-07-2005 05:44 AM

... so sly that it even escaped me.No, this is relevant. I have read a lot of your posts Faith, and I know that you and I are polar opposites on many, many issues. I have been wondering how I might be able to engage you in a discussion, and this may be it. First, you and I would have to agree on what those two terms mean. If we can do that, then I might be able to come up with some evidence that Doug Wilson can be appropriately labeled as one or both.*My apologies Faith, if you took this as a slight.Good morning.*ABE: I got a little sloppy here. I'm not sure that Doug Wilson can be labeled as a white supremacist. What I should be able to do is document the links that he has to the white supremacy movement.This message has been edited by Michael, 08-07-2005 06:38 AM

Perhaps I unfairly lumped you in with Omnivorous' non sequitur accusation. Sorry if so, but with your posting a lot of leftist accusations of Doug Wilson I'm not sure how far I want to go into this anyway. Treating Wilson as some kind of evil creature who has no right to his beliefs is the message there and I'm now pretty leery of what you are doing with this thread against him. These things become irrational personal attacks pretty rapidly, based on the flimsiest of excuses, as Omnivorous' post demonstrates.I'm very far from a white supremacist and I have no preconceptions about what a "neo-confederate" is, never having known there was such an established category of opinion as the term implies. That the South's point of view could be defended at all is pretty new to me and I found Wilkins' views interesting as far as I heard them.But even with out and out white supremacists, this demonizing/dehumanizing of people with such beliefs that the Left does, makes me feel like defending them.Wilson is no racist, but the emotional attitudes of the Left make me want to defend even racists -- leave people alone for heaven's sake, they have a right to their opinions. Whether Wilson is a neo-confederate or not, whatever that is, I don't know, but I would defend his right to be one if he is.I have not yet read through Wilson and Wilkins' article or the rebuttal to it, but I see what's coming. It's going to be "scholarship" in the service of leftist politics, and I'm not sure I want to play this game. There is a neutral way it is necessary to apply labels to people, as it helps to keep their opinions in view, but when the Left goes after someone it is not neutral, it is a vendetta involving slander and protests and denial of rights.I'm getting the impression despite your polite and reasonable manner, that this is what this thread is about. Assure me it's not.

That's more reasonable-sounding, but I have to say that since Idaho is known for its white supremacists, a pastor's having "links" to any of them wouldn't mean anything.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-07-2005 06:53 AM

I don't have the patience to digest all that after all, Michael, because it's all from the point of view of Wilson's detractors. Most of it is new to me but since it is all from the hostile point of view I can't be expected to take their word for it. The Poverty Law Center spins its report and I have no idea how much of it is fact. They call Wilson a Reconstructionist, he denies it, they say he is anyway. I'm not all that clear on what a Reconstructionist is except that I vaguely associate it with "Kingdom Now" thinking and I certainly don't connect him with those ideas.In a side article, they also do a smear on Wilkins, reporting things I've heard Wilkins say that are completely orthodox Christianity, and political and historical views I do not have enough knowledge to judge, so I refuse to judge them. If, however, he is supporting a theocratic form of government, and I'm not sure, although that is the insinuation, but if he is, I can say that I am against that, as it is not feasible or desirable in a pluralistic society.Spin headline on the report: "Taliban?" Give me a break. "Taliban" is a typical leftist anti-Christian sliming tactic. This is a war of words and persuasion, not guns, get real. Is freedom of speech a protected right or not? "Religious empire?" Wilson has founded some Christian schools (enrollment in the college 120! THEY'RE TAKING OVER THE WORLD! RUN, LEFTIES!) and has a catalog of homeschooling materials, and their curriculum is very high quality education, very very impressive, and it should raise standards all across the country eventually if it catches on. The SPLC even insinuates that there's something evil about that though! Apparently some of the college's heroes are not the SPLC's heroes, but does the SPLC have a spirit of toleration of their right to be different from them? Not that I can see. Like Lefties in general they appear to be more interested in shutting them up and manipulating opinion than getting at the objective truth, and ultimately enforcing complete conformity to their own ideals.I think I'll just save your links to read more carefully on my own rather than debate them here. It's going to take some time to get the whole picture, both sides, and I have other things on my mind.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-07-2005 08:17 AM

It is not. I am trying to convince you that Doug Wilson is a source of problems for Moscow and the surrounding area. You asked for a link that discusses it, and I provided two.In order to put together my argument it is necessary to discuss Doug Wilson's philosophies. Why? Exactly. North Idaho has a reputation. Many out there would like to see that reputation changed. It certainly helped when the Aryan Nation compound near Couer d' Alene was closed down. Still, there remains a sensitivity to the racist reputation of the region.Now, I have yet to make my case for Doug Wilson's philosophies, so let's go hypothetical for a moment so that I can show you where I intended to go. Suppose that there were an individual in Moscow who has links to white supremacists. This individual has a history of confrontation, and a disdain for others in the community. This individual also has made a statement saying that small university towns are places to be "taken." If such a person existed, would you agree that this person would be a problem for the community?Despite the inflammatory language in the SPLC report, the facts as pertain to problems between Wilson and the community are as I remember them. There is that second source that you could check out when you get the time. I can come up with more when you are ready.I understand that you have other things to do than debate—-as do I. Be warned though-—I am a bit compulsive (understatement) and will follow up on any replies you make here.Enjoy the day Faith.

Faith huffs:

quote:

---

Huh? That twisted non sequitur and insinuating personal accusation does not deserve an answer.

---

No, Faith, it was neither a non sequitur nor an accusation. You indicated your sympathy with his views on the presence of "true Christianity" in the pre-War South vs. the "Unitarian" heretics in the North.I have read Wilson's leaflets; I am familiar with his position on the great good of slavery. Now I gather that you are, too.My post was a question and a moral challenge, and you gave me all the answer I needed.