Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/images/My_Town.wmv
Anyone else see this? 6 minutes onward is quite interesting.
Anyone else see this? 6 minutes onward is quite interesting.
DOUG WILSON MOVIE
- Thread starter Romans922
- Start date
- Status
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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]
[Edited on 9--19-06 by Draught Horse]
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
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:
[Edited on 9-19-2006 by Magma2]
http://www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse/Plagiarism.htm
also:
[Edited on 9-19-2006 by Magma2]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
old news
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
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
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
Bawberator
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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?
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.
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
Puritanboard Clerk
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).
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
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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
Puritanboard Clerk
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Fun too. Like what Churchhill said about "battle." Nothing is more exhilirating than getting shot at and missed!
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
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]
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
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.
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
Not your cup of tea
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.
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
Puritanboard Clerk
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:
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]
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:
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]
- Status
