# DOUG WILSON MOVIE



## Romans922 (Sep 19, 2006)

http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/images/My_Town.wmv

Anyone else see this? 6 minutes onward is quite interesting.


----------



## CDM (Sep 19, 2006)

What is it about?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 19, 2006)

It opens up about the city of Moscow, Idaho. It is a documentary, but about 6 minutes in it shows the 'big conspiracy' going on in town....NAMELY Doug Wilson's church....> pro-slavery, confederate stuff, basically the whole town is in an uproar. League of the South stuff (so it talks about Steve Wilkins also.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 19, 2006)

Doug, Doug, Doug! Tschk, tschk!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 19, 2006)

I have also listened to his debate with an Arminian, Feminist liberal who hates Calvinism (e.g. you guys) with all her heart. Its worth listening to. You get to see how evil some liberals are. So, do we join up with the Christ-haters against Wilson? I know many have problems with his theological formulations; that's fine. 

[Edited on 9--19-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 19, 2006)

Boy, this thing takes forever to load...


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay, took forever to load the page and....






I got a blank page.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I have also listened to his debate with an Arminian, Feminist liberal who hates Calvinism (e.g. you guys) with all her heart. Its worth listening to. You get to see how evil some liberals are. So, do we join up with the Christ-haters against Wilson? I know many have problems with his theological formulations; that's fine.
> 
> [Edited on 9--19-06 by Draught Horse]



That town meeting is slightly heated.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 19, 2006)

I realize this is old news, but both Wilkins and Wilson are plagiarists, although I believe Wilkins took responsibility for the plagiarized portions of their little slavery booklet. Of course Wilson's company published it.

http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Plagiarism.htm

also:



> Doug Wilson and slavery
> 
> Southern Slavery: As it Was, a booklet defending slavery as biblically viable, has roused considerable controversy since its release in 1996. Critics of co-authors Douglas Wilson and Steve Wilkins have added to their content-driven charges of racism and shoddy history one more accusation: plagiarism.
> 
> ...



[Edited on 9-19-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 19, 2006)

old news


----------



## py3ak (Sep 19, 2006)

Sean, not only is it old news, but Wilson apologized and they stopped selling it until it could be corrected.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 19, 2006)

This is a fascinating video. It's a little long, but it's a good study in the culture war being played out on the local level. It's also a good study in the dynamics of small-town life. 

One might accuse the video of being a little unbalanced in the amount of time it gives to Wilson's critics but they did give Wilson & co a chance to explain themselves and to put their ideas in some context. 

Certainly there was leftist bigotry on display (e.g., the evangelical who implied that all children must be in the state schools!) but I also saw evidence of real fear of a "take-over" of downtown Moscow. 

The film documents the fear that the "Christian right," particularly the Wilsonian quasi-reconstructionist vision of Christendom restored, generates in the cultural left. The Christ Church folk don't seem to have persuaded everyone of their vision! 

Perhaps that's the point, that they haven't started with persuasion. They seem to have started with culture war and economics. The sort of fear of "Christendom" on display here is the sort of thing we ought NOT generate. It isn't political in the sense of running for office, but if they really do plan to repopulate Moscow with Wilson's followers via the K-12 and NSA schools, then that's a sort of ground-up politics.

I notice that the conflict seems (judging only by the video and critical websites I've seen) to center around power and not the cross. It's too bad that Wilson's congregation seems to be known in Moscow for trying to "take over" or "take back," more than for preaching Christ and him crucified. 

Assuming, for the sake of discussion (a debatable premise), that the video comes close to capturing the reaction of a significant portion of the area (I drove through there this summer, it really is beautiful, of course I'm from Nebraska and that might warp my aesthetic sensibilities a bit) then it presents an interesting contrast to the reaction generated by the apostles. The culture reacted to the early Christians in official and unofficial ways. 1 Peter 4 reflects this. The apostolic Christians suffered social stigma not for trying to "take back" or "take over" the Roman empire (or small towns in Asia Minor) but for simply living quiet, godly lives. They suffered shame for worshipping a crucified Jew. They were misunderstood for eating "the body" of Christ. They were mocked for changing their lifestyles, for not getting drunk and attending orgies any more. 

Wilson's movements are known for rather different things, the rehabilitation of the "peculiar institution" of American slavery and theoretical at least (judging by comments made by Christ Church/NSA folk) theonomy.

As to ignoring their theology so as to make common cause with fellow cultural conservatives, count me out. Their vision of culture is tied up with their theology.They are organically related. The theology gives birth to their vision of culture. Their doctrine of baptismal benefits fuels their vision of Christendom restored. Evan Wilson's account of Doug's romantic idea of Oxford and Cambridge resonates with my reading of Credenda/Agenda in the past. The problem is, it never existed, at least not like that. They're questing for a utopia that never was. It's a long story, but the short version is, this is England (or Europe), it's post-Jacksonian, radically egalitarian America and the class system (it really exists to this day) on which Oxon was built doesn't exist here. That downtown office building isn't an old monastery. It never will be.

We have to be Christians in this culture, as it is. We're not called to transform the culture on the basis of a mythopoetic ideal that never actually existed.

For what it's worth,

rsc


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 19, 2006)

As always, an excellent observation and evaluation Scott. "A mythopoetic ideal", man I can't wait to use that phrase, that is rich. That is worth the price of admission right there. Thank you brother. For a man from Nebraska you sure do weave a splendid and colorful tapestry of words and I watch in awe.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 19, 2006)

> I notice that the conflict seems (judging only by the video and critical websites I've seen) to center around power and not the cross. It's too bad that Wilson's congregation seems to be known in Moscow for trying to "take over" or "take back," more than for preaching Christ and him crucified.



Sounds like the Roman state/church. It all fits. 

And, I agree Idaho, particularly the pan handle region, is awesome "“ some of the most beautiful country in America. 



> Their doctrine of baptismal benefits fuels their vision of Christendom restored.



I saw both Wilkins and Wilson speak at a conference aimed at high school and college age kids in Hampton, VA, and Wilkins spent some time addressing the advantage, albeit not the ideal, of forced baptism since, in his view, this is what makes nations "œChristian." 

I wonder if they have any fountains in Moscow?


----------



## AdamM (Sep 19, 2006)

Scott, I agree 100% with your comments. 

In addition, I would recommend folks download the two White Horse Inn interviews with Wilson to get a fuller picture of where he is coming from. I'm convinced after hearing him interact with Mike Horton that Wilson is primarily a controversialist. That's why in my opinion, he fits into a bit of different category than some of the other FV folks. For Wilson the one constant seems to be the ruckus, its just the subject that keeps changing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 19, 2006)

Has anybody listened to the Keely debate? Frankly, it was awesome. You got to see him debate a liberal feminazi and hear savage Christ-haters call in. Bahnsen would have been proud with Wilson's response.

Sometimes I think we Reformed folk could use a good challenge in actually getting down and dirty contending for the faith. Like face-to-face combat. Yeah, its easy in the safe confines of message boards (and I single no man out here; I speak to myself primarily) but its quite exhilariting to go forth in public (I went toe-to-toe with Mormons this summer; a lot of fun).


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Has anybody listened to the Keely debate? Frankly, it was awesome. You got to see him debate a liberal feminazi and hear savage Christ-haters call in. Bahnsen would have been proud with Wilson's response.
> 
> Sometimes I think we Reformed folk could use a good challenge in actually getting down and dirty contending for the faith.




Which faith is that? Wilson's faith or the Christian one?


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Has anybody listened to the Keely debate? ... Bahnsen would have been proud with Wilson's response.
> 
> Sometimes I think we Reformed folk could use a good challenge in actually getting down and dirty contending for the faith. Like face-to-face combat. Yeah, its easy in the safe confines of message boards (and I single no man out here; I speak to myself primarily) but its quite exhilariting to go forth in public (I went toe-to-toe with Mormons this summer; a lot of fun).



If the point is to encourage the Reformed to get out and DO evangelism/apologetics --  I certainly have no disagreement with that - and heartily validate Jacob's enthusiam! 

I caution though: Mr. Wilson's pride will (and perhaps already is?) bankrupt him bringing shame upon the name of Jesus. The Holy Scriptures warn about the man who "measures himself by himself" Etc. Unfortunately, theonomy shares a similar risk: pride. (No small sin.)

As Dr. Clark might attest, the damage control required to clean-up after movements like theonomy or FV exceeds the "victory" of things like winning debates or taking-back culture. Indeed, the historic track-record proves, rather than helping, the Gospel and the Church have been marginalized or imperiled. (Will we never learn?)

The first rule of Christian apologetics (Biblically) is humility --- as we are ambassadors of the character of Christ. (An old apologetics teacher, Dr. Walter Martin used to say: "never win the argument in favor of losing the soul.")

Some times people have good reason to be "Christ haters" suffering at the hands of Christian, inhumane-wrecklessness. (I cringe at the results of some apologists who are uttlerly out of touch with the prime directive--my former guilt most of all.)

The "theology of glory" is seriously tempting -- may we all be mindful of this and not add to the offense of the Gospel. (God help us.)



Robin


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

Not only from Nebraska...Dr. Clark was raised a Unitarian! (Am I right?)

WhoooKnooo what God would do?!!

Dr. Clark, we are so grateful that God Reformed you so we could benefit from one of the great teachers of The Faith.




Robin


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

> The first rule of Christian apologetics (Biblically) is humility --- as we are ambassadors of the character of Christ. (An old apologetics teacher, Dr. Walter Martin used to say: "never win the argument in favor of losing the soul.")



And if you had listened to the debate--which I doubt you did--you would have seen that he was the soul of courtesy to a lady and a hostile, Christ-hating audience.



[Edited on 9--20-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



The Reformed faith, For what it's worth. I was saying that its high-time thunderpuppies get off the internet and engage in evangelism/debate with flesh and blood liberals and enemies of the faith. Like be brave and stuff. Its really easy to be bold in the confines of PB; its a little different on the streets.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 20, 2006)

Maybe it's time to get off the board for a little while.

Good post, Jacob. Glad you're back!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Maybe it's time to get off the board for a little while.
> 
> Good post, Jacob. Glad you're back!



Thanks Meg. I really don't plan to do "theology posting" on the board. I just got bored (no pun). 

This summer I talked with Mormons and shared the Reformed faith in a brutal, 3rd world town in North Louisiana. Its a little scary (the latter, since most of these guys were packing heat and carrying knives and were drunk/on drugs) in that you better know your stuff and you better say it in a way that doesn't make them get violent. Of course, all that is lost on protected message boards.


----------



## turmeric (Sep 20, 2006)

A little missionary-work would do a lot of us some good! We might be humbled a bit.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> A little missionary-work would do a lot of us some good! We might be humbled a bit.



Fun too. Like what Churchhill said about "battle." Nothing is more exhilirating than getting shot at and missed!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 20, 2006)

Jacob,

As I posted under the Wilson debate thread, I've spent a little time on "the streets," working with hookers and knife-wielding crackheads and lots of other colorful folks. 

There is a place for this kind of discussion too, however. 

This board (which generally an oasis of sanity on the wacky web) and evangelism aren't mutually exclusive. 

What are we going to say to folk on the street and how? That's what we're hashing out here. Should we talk to them first about "abortion" as a social evil or about "their" abortion and the guilt they carry and the redeeming work of the Savior? How one answers that question is determined by how one asks and answers other questions. 

What sort of approach should we use with unbelievers? Is EE appropriate? (the answer is "no.") Who is called to "evangelize" and who is called to "witness?" If we don't get these things right then we'll have to undo damage just to talk to folks.

Did you see the fear in the eyes of those people in Moscow? They're not afraid of God and his holy law, they're afraid of Doug and his unholy plans for their city! Those are two very different things.

The gospel is not about "power," it's about "weakness." It's not about our "wisdom" and sophistication, it's about Christ's wisdom and the foolishness of the cross.

Finney was "on the streets" getting things "done" for the Lord and whole sections of the US remained "burned over" because of it. What will it be like in Moscow in 100 years, after the Christ Church experiment has come and gone and the "movement" folk who flocked to town to be a part of the excitement have left? Who will be left to pick up the pieces and minister Christ to those people? How will they hear us when we say, "repent"? Will they hear, "He wants my property?" or will they hear what we're actually saying, "Turn from your sins and embrace the only Savior Jesus?"

Doug may be quite the gunslinger, no doubt he is, but what sort of a _minister_ is he? What kind of a "gunslinger" was the apostle Paul? As I recall, some folks didn't find him very impressive in person.

rsc

[Edited on 9-20-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 20, 2006)

The Reformed faith, For what it's worth. [/quote]

You must be talking about a different Doug Wilson then. The one in Moscow has long since left the Reformed faith and has embraced another one. You must have missed it.



> I was saying that its high-time thunderpuppies get off the internet and engage in evangelism/debate with flesh and blood liberals and enemies of the faith. Like be brave and stuff. Its really easy to be bold in the confines of PB; its a little different on the streets.



What a load self-serving tripe. Wilson is a very clever fraud and this is something I have been more than happy to say -- and support -- anywhere, which is something I have done and will continue to do "œon the streets" or even in the tiny confines of PB. 

Not all enemies of the faith are atheists or liberals. Some of them are conservatives who even pretend to be Reformed. But if Bahnsen would be proud of a heretic like Wilson, then I guess that says something about Bahnsen . . .and, I suppose, you.


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 20, 2006)

I did think it highly ironic that they had someone on enraged with the idea that the homosexuals might be evicted, and in the very next scene something was said about Doug Wilson not being welcome in the town etc. Toleration appears to be a one way street on both sides of the road.

I thought the (I assumed they were NSA students?) did a good job speaking to the one person about homosexuality, and turning the discussion from a political focus to a spiritual one, calling for repentance.

I do think Doug Wilson and company probably tend to read the slavery issue in the light of their own ideas of patriarchalism, and so miss it for what it really was for a vast number of slaves (when I heard the part about 'good health care' I could only think of a poor woman I read about who was hung upside down while in labor, and then simply sliced open-- and the whole idea of federal headship, while many slaves were not even allowed to learn to read their Bibles or to have services: I am sure Doug Wilson would deplore these things but if the quotes from the booklet were accurate, he does seem to whitewash them) and that kind of thing can't help, at all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

Dr Clark:
I appreciate the work you do and have told you so. You have done far more for the gospel than I ever will. God has given the church a gift in you. I wasn't speaking of you.

Sean:


> But if Bahnsen would be proud of a heretic like Wilson, then I guess that says something about Bahnsen . . .and, I suppose, you.



Speak into the microphone and say that again. You are making the Trinity Foundation look very good with that one.

I came back to the board, having, ironically, left many of my FV sympathies behind. But some here (not Dr Clark--he has been quite patient with me) are just as venomous as ever. Maybe in another 6 months. 

[Edited on 9--20-06 by Draught Horse]

[Edited on 9--20-06 by Draught Horse]


----------



## AdamM (Sep 20, 2006)

Jacob, I hope you stick around, because while you were gone, your contributions here were missed.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Speak into the microphone and say that again. You are making the Trinity Foundation look very good with that one.



Not half as good as you're making Bahnsen look. 



> I came back to the board, having, ironically, left many of my FV sympathies behind.



Where did you leave them? Last I checked Wilson had written the definitive FV manifesto and yet you paint him as a warrior of the faith. But, perhaps I jumped the gun and you're just not up to speed with Wilson's gospel? If so, my apologies. 



> But some here (not Dr Clark--he has been quite patient with me) are just as venomous as ever. Maybe in another 6 months.



Again, I'm sorry if I haven't given you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems a bit incredible to me that men on these boards would be ignorant of Wilson's neo-liberalism (or, if you prefer, hyper-covenatalism) especially this late in the game. 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you haven't read Wilson's diatribe against the Reformed faith, please pick up his book; _Reformed is Not Enough._ After that, it would probably be helpful if you picked up Dr. Robbins and my reply to Wilson; _Not Reformed At All_. At the very least, pick up a copy of former OPC RE Paul Elliot's book; _Christianity and Neo-Liberalism._ 

In any case, I'm sorry if I've offended you, but it's getting very late in the day for the kind of praise you've given the man.

[Edited on 9-20-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Jacob, I hope you stick around, because while you were gone, your contributions here were missed.



Just a point of order, doesn't Jacob (I assume this is Draught Horse) have to include his church affiliation to post?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

^true; haven't yet decided if I will stay long run, though. Time is precious and I don't want to spend it unwisely (for slightly unrelated reasons that is why I shut down my blog--time eater. I am just seeing if PB (and other boards) will take up as muc time as well).


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

I've read RINE. I've read Federal Vision. I've read the Beisner edited book. I am in the midst of Guy Waters book. While I would like to bring myself to read the Trinity Found. stuff, its hard for me to take seriously a man who says that Van Til is irrational (and by implication: Mike Horton, Scott Clark, Derek Thomas, Bill Edgar, Scot Oliphant, Fred Greco, etc).


----------



## Robin (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I've read RINE. I've read Federal Vision. I've read the Beisner edited book. I am in the midst of Guy Waters book. While I would like to bring myself to read the Trinity Found. stuff, its hard for me to take seriously a man who says that Van Til is irrational (and by implication: Mike Horton, Scott Clark, Derek Thomas, Bill Edgar, Scot Oliphant, Fred Greco, etc).



Dear J,

I hope and pray you will continue the brave work of sincerely and fairly studying the opposition while questioning your presuppositions. This is the real work of true education.

God Bless,

Robin

PS. Your contributions to the board have always been meaningful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 20, 2006)

Thanks Robin. 
I have actually corrected a few of my views in discussion with several respected teachers. That being said, I am yet to be convinced that *some* FVers are really denying the gospel.


----------



## Magma2 (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I have actually corrected a few of my views in discussion with several respected teachers. That being said, I am yet to be convinced that *some* FVers are really denying the gospel.



So who would you include in that list? John Kinnaird? Steve Wilkins? Steve Schlissel? Peter Leithart? John Barach? Richard Lusk? 

Since you've said you've read _Reformed is Not Enough_, would you included Wilson among those FVers who *is not* denying the gospel?

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 21, 2006)

[Mod ON]

We are starting to drift off topic. The topic is about the movie not what one thinks about FV.

[Mod OFF)


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 3, 2006)

I watched the video about a week ago. I thought it was okay. The main thing that stuck out to me was that at time when Wilson was speaking to was VERY hard to hear. 

It seemed that when parts of the "booklet" were read it was taken out of context.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> 
> 
> Someone used the word, "hyper-coventalist" I am curious...what is this?



"Hyper-covenantalism" is a misinformed criticism sometimes made of the Federal Visionists. Supposedly they emphasize the covenant too much. The first time the charge was made that I know of was in a lecture by Richard Phillips that he delivered in a number of places and which ended up on a number of websites. 

http://www.gpts.edu/resources/resource_covconfusion.html
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID559376|CIID1787572,00.html

This charge ignores the fact that in most places where the Federal Vision people talk about "covenant" they define it as something other than covenant. The real Federal Vision problem is the opposite of hypercovenantalism.


[Edited on 10-3-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> 
> 
> I watched the video about a week ago. I thought it was okay. The main thing that stuck out to me was that at time when Wilson was speaking to was VERY hard to hear.
> ...



Have you read the "booklet"?


And darn those eagles! I voted for the packers because I had bubba franks as my TE. I am a bears fan, so I usually vote against the packers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2006)

Wilson corrected teh booklet (I assume yall are talking about the slavery booklet) in his book _Black and Tan_. If one wanted to do a "scholarly refutation" of Wilson's cultural views (which by implication would refute Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer--no short order), then the bigger book would be the route to go.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by johnny_redeemed_
> ...




No, I have not read the booklet. I would like to...

btw, never vote against the eagles!


----------

