Douglas Wilson

[eloquacious]

They *both* believe in extreme patriarchy. And Wilson, on a scale of sick, seems to win the prize.

 

They the pastors or they the church? Or they the denomination? I ask merely because I attend a church of his (Doug Wilson's) denomination, and I have never seen nor heard of any such thing in our church, nor are the people that I know who have lived and studied in Moscow (at New Saint Andrew's) like this.

[eloquacious]

Incidentally this whole wedding discussion reminds me of the Norwegian prisons video I saw earlier today. Men who murdered three human beings with a chainsaw being permitted to use a chainsaw to fell wood on a prison island, with no chains and unarmed guards?

 

Crazy, to me. To the Norwegians? They claim it works. Perhaps this is the mindset that Doug Wilson has here. As I said, I disapprove of this marriage, speaking from an outsider's perspective. I merely prefer to try to understand where he might be coming from before I judge him, rather than merely crying "filth! monster" and being done with it.

[Runningmom80]

Incidentally this whole wedding discussion reminds me of the Norwegian prisons video I saw earlier today. Men who murdered three human beings with a chainsaw being permitted to use a chainsaw to fell wood on a prison island, with no chains and unarmed guards?

 

Crazy, to me. To the Norwegians? They claim it works. Perhaps this is the mindset that Doug Wilson has here. As I said, I disapprove of this marriage, speaking from an outsider's perspective. I merely prefer to try to understand where he might be coming from before I judge him, rather than merely crying "filth! monster" and being done with it.

 

 

Even if this was his thought process, it's still disgustingly wrong.

 

 

I fear you may be grasping at straws here....

[Spy Car]

:

You do not need to educate me, I am not speaking of what I think of the matter, merely trying to give the benefit of the doubt to a fellow believer. I do not know his reasoning behind this, but knowing what I know of him outside of the context of this thread, I have to believe that his intentions are good, no matter how misguided. Had my pastor been the minister at this wedding, I would be more than a little terrified, too. I can't conceive of his (that is, my pastor's) going against the state like this, too ... I think that's what bothers me the most. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's refers to more than just taxes. If you believe, as conservative Christians of a reformed bent most often do, that the power of justice should be in the hands of the state, then you should abide by their decisions, and the spirit of them, not look for loopholes to the letter. Just because there was no law against it does not make it right.

 

That being said, people of faith believe things that others can't understand, sometimes with cause. I was bulimic for 8 years, until one night in college I cried out to God (if he existed) to heal me. I have never since then had problems, even though I've been told many times that bulimia is like alcoholism and I would always be tempted.

 

That being said, I do not apply my situation here. I am not saying that I believe God healed this man, esp. given the court documents and the analysis of his character, only that I have experienced miraculous healing, and perhaps this pastor believes it has occurred here, too.

 

Douglas Wilson was more than the preacher at the wedding.

 

He knew of the crimes ahead of the police and covered up.

 

He wrote the Judge asking for leniency for an admitted (and convicted) child molester.

 

And he was instrumental in arranging the marriage.

 

His role is not passive, nor is it comprehensible.

 

Bill

Edited August 4, 2011 by Spy Car

[eloquacious]

They the pastors or they the church? Or they the denomination? I ask merely because I attend a church of his (Doug Wilson's) denomination, and I have never seen nor heard of any such thing in our church, nor are the people that I know who have lived and studied in Moscow (at New Saint Andrew's) like this.

 

I should perhaps revise my statement. We did have some families, a handful over the past five years, who were more... country folk? They longed for an agrarian lifestyle and left our church to go be modern-day homesteaders. Their character in general was more patriarchal, too, though NONE were like the descriptions in that blog Ellie linked to, which I stayed up and read until 12:30 last night. Their wives tended to wear longer skirts than the general population, but it also served to highlight how very diverse our church body was. We believed that we had room for all kinds, but I guess they sought more like-minded churches.

 

All that to say that before you judge Doug Wilson's "type" as a general "they," consider that I am one of "them." I have a degree from an Ivy League college, I left my Master's program to get married, not because I was so desperate to marry (though let's face it, my man is hot) but because the situation in Baltimore where I was teaching had become untenable. My husband and I are in agreement that I should complete it once the boys are a bit older, and possibly even go on to a Ph.D and teaching. For now I'm having far too much fun with the munchkins, and I am grateful that I am able to stay home.

 

My husband even wants to (gasp!) send them to a public charter school. I have been known to wear pants to church, but in general I wear skirts. Most of them are above the knee, once in winter I wore a long felted wool skirt, then realized how ridiculous that is in Arizona. My former pastor's wife wore sleeveless shirts. My current pastor's wife doesn't, but that is a personal choice, not a mandate from her husband.

 

My brother-in-law, who turns 17 at the beginning of September, is attending a ballet school in San Francisco. This is not the sort of thing I would imagine going on in Doug Phillips' church, but everyone here supports him. They fear for him, being far from home at a young age, but there is no sense that he is not manly because he's not off shooting deer in camouflage.

 

Some families at our church homeschool, some send their kids to Christian school (classical and otherwise), some to public schools. If we are "them" then I think you need to refine your definition of "them."

[EthiopianFood]

Where is the court document where he states that he intends to have children? The dates of the site I saw seemed to be years before the marriage was to take place.

[FaithManor]

Please explain who "they" here are. The family in question, or the church, or his denomination? How far would you take it? And what precisely do you know of his church and denomination?

 

 

The marriage was approved by Doug Wilson, Ed Iverson (grandfather of the bride and the librarian of St. Andew's Collee - the unaccredited institution started by Doug Wilson and Roy Atwood), Roy Atwood, and the eldership of the church. Courtships are arranged by the eldership. They eldership approved of it and then gave Sitler the go-ahead to contact Katie and pursue a courtship. I did extensive research and read articles and interviews conducted by three journalists - if you do some google digging and are diligent you will find these but I didn't save the links. Maybe tomorrow I will have time to find them again. But, this was also testified to in the court documents when Steven Sitler made the statement that the eldership of the church approved of the marriage. Katie also referred to her grandfather (Ed Iverson also an elder of the church), Doug Wilson, and other elders in her blog about the "romance".

 

So, "they" refers to not only the senior pastor Doug Wilson, but to his elders...if your church has deacons, this would be a similar position though in some denominations, elders are actually ordained (Free Methodist and some Lutheran synods) whereas deacons (Weslyan, Nazarene, etc.) are not. Yet, many of the roles they fulfill are similar or the same.

 

This is what has me absolutely gobsmacked. In August of 2005, the eldership of Christ Church was informed by Doug Wilson of the crime along with the prosecution's deal to Sitler and that he had confessed to crimes against children in three states. Part of the deal that Idaho made with him was that they would not extradite him to the other states for trial if he would release the names/places of his other victims so they could contact those families and make sure the children received help. He agreed to that deal (good deal for him obviously). He was sentence of two years jail (he served 18 months with daily release for therapy) and LIFE probation. He has already violated parole for voyeurism and was told if he had another violation of any kind, he would be incarcerated indefinitely. According to the court records I waded through, Doug Wilson is also aware of the parole violation. His therapy records are not protected because as a felon he does not have doctor/therapist/client privilege. So, reading through some of the court therapy records is most definitely nauseous.

 

So, that is "they" -the leadership of ChristChurch Kirk, Idaho. As near as I can tell, though associated with Reformed Theology and Patriarchy, I cannot make out that any denomination that actually claims the church. It could be independent. Therefore, I, and probably Bill as well as Rivka and others, are not implying a larger "they" such as a denominational board, bishops, district superintendents, etc.

 

Faith

[HSMom2One]

I'm not defending Wilson at all. But I'm not going to take someone else's word characterizing him either.

 

:iagree:

 

Excellent point. This is all interesting and invites a closer look, but I hope people don't all come to conclusions based on the opinions of others.

 

Go read the books, watch the interviews, etc. then form your own opinions please.

 

Lucinda

[Julie in PA]

Veritas Press and Omnibus have been mentioned in this thread. If you would like to know more about the vision of Omnibus or Veritas Press Scholars Academy, I would suggest contacting Bruce Etter (Headmaster) at bruce@veritaspress.com. There has been much false information given, and I think it is best to go to the source.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Veritas Press and Omnibus have been mentioned in this thread. If you would like to know more about the vision of Omnibus or Veritas Press Scholars Academy, I would suggest contacting Bruce Etter (Headmaster) at bruce@veritaspress.com. There has been much false information given, and I think it is best to go to the source.

 

Given the enduring nature of board threads and the internet, if you have information that you think would reveal statements here as false, I think it would be worth including it here.

[8circles]

Given the enduring nature of board threads and the internet, if you have information that you think would reveal statements here as false, I think it would be worth including it here.

:iagree:I've followed all the links & watched all the videos & done my own searching around during the life of this thread & I've not seen anything false posted here. I'm curious what is false in this thread.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Where is the court document where he states that he intends to have children? The dates of the site I saw seemed to be years before the marriage was to take place.

 

Is it not their belief to be a quiverfull? Also, IMHO most women want children. I would assume the wife wants children until proven otherwise IMHO.

 

To me this is a monstrous event since pedophiles are most likely to re-offend. The Catholic Church made the mistake of thinking that pedophile priests could be reformed and look at where that got them:(

[Mrs Mungo]

Given the enduring nature of board threads and the internet, if you have information that you think would reveal statements here as false, I think it would be worth including it here.

 

Julie's husband works for VP, she's posted about it before.

[Ellesmere]

:

 

Douglas Wilson was more than the preacher at the wedding.

 

He knew of the crimes ahead of the police and covered up.

 

He wrote the Judge asking for leniency for an admitted (and convicted) child molester.

 

And he was instrumental in arranging the marriage.

 

His role is not passive, nor is it comprehensible.

 

Bill

He was also busy promoting some of the most disturbing teachings that I've come across. And I thought I'd heard some pretty horrifying things already.

 

I merely prefer to try to understand where he might be coming from before I judge him, rather than merely crying "filth! monster" and being done with it.

 

I also give people the benefit of the doubt and often believe good intentions. Personally knowing some pastors that have very good intentions and yet teach absolutely twisted and hateful (I'm not saying they personally are hateful) things from the pulpit has helped me understand. I understand that people with sincere, heartfelt intentions can often teach very wrong and downright sickening things. Now, if they thought it was sickening, they wouldn't teach it. I get that.

 

I also realize that many people in a denomination or sect often do not adhere to the teachings or fully understand the true nature of the preaching and teaching they sit under. And I know it can be tough to define terms since a lot of churches and leaders don't belong to a particular denomination.

 

Still, the sincerity of the teacher or ignorance of the flock does not make teaching the sort of ... stuff that Douglas Wilson preaches as biblical truth any less wrong. It ought to be exposed for what it is.

 

But, if anything can be refuted (and the quote that I referred to was straight from Wilson's book, in context) or if he has reversed on his teachings, then I am open to hearing it. Really. :) But understand that I am not having a simple, knee-jerk reaction nor am I making a personal attack.

[herbalgirl]

So, that is "they" -the leadership of ChristChurch Kirk, Idaho. As near as I can tell, though associated with Reformed Theology and Patriarchy, I cannot make out that any denomination that actually claims the church. It could be independent. Therefore, I, and probably Bill as well as Rivka and others, are not implying a larger "they" such as a denominational board, bishops, district superintendents, etc.

 

Faith,

 

Here you go: http://www.crechurches.org/churches/presbytery_knox.php

[Kimber]

Okay, I swear that this is a completely sincere question and not an attempt to stir the pot.

 

If you are a Biblical literalist, how do you respond to Wilson's analysis of Biblical passages about slavery? It's my understanding that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant and literally true and applies to all times do not agree with Wilson's claim that there is nothing wrong with slavery as long as you treat your slaves well. I would really appreciate if you could lay out how the anti-all-slavery argument is made from a strict Biblical perspective - in short, what makes Wilson's argument anti-Biblical.

 

I promise that I will listen respectfully and not try to use any responses to draw analogies to other social issues, or to attack Christians of any stripe. I am just really curious and interested to know how people who share Wilson's premises about the Bible respond to his Biblical argument.

 

I didn't read every post, but I came across this question and wanted to attempt to explain my beliefs. I assume that Wilson gets his beliefs from this scripture below. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Submission to Rulers and Masters

 

13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

 

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

 

22“He committed no sin,

 

and no deceit was found in his mouth.â€

 

23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

 

In this scripture we as Christians are called to be like Christ, even in unjust situations--slavery being one of those unjust situations. The whole focus is about suffering for doing good, just as Christ did.

 

And even though Christ laid down his life for us, those who crucified him were wrong in their actions. So slaves were commanded to behave like Christ even though they were enslaved.

 

A similar situation is when Paul was thrown in Prison. When the prison gates were opened wide due to an earthquake, he did not leave. Because he stayed, the prison guard was led to Christ. However, later in the scripture we see that Paul continued to espouse that he was unjustly imprisoned.

 

The focus of this is all about doing right even though others in authority over you (legitimately or illegitimately) are doing wrong. It does not teach that those in authority are there legitimately.

[eloquacious]

Re: quiverfull: This is Doug Wilson's post on birth control.

 

http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8447:eleven-theses-on-birth-control&catid=84:sex-and-culture#JOSC_TOP

 

A summary: children are awesome, they are a blessing, by all means have several - but be aware that however many you have, you are responsible for physically and spiritually. In practice this means that each couple should decide if, and how many, of these blessings they wish to welcome.

 

"More is involved in raising up a godly seed than to have a man with dogmatic convictions about birth control, matched only by his unwillingness to feed, read to, educate, pay tuition for, bestow upon, and love the results of his dogmatism. There are no promised covenantal blessings for the self-absorbed proprietors of stud farms."

 

Hardly what is considered "quiverfull," but certainly on average the families in his congregation have more children than replacement rate of 2.whatever. Then again, looking at the signatures of most people on this board, we as a group tend to have more than that, too.

 

Our little family has two, we intend to have three, because of concerns with repeated Cesareans. (Can't deny I'm hoping for twins next time, because I'd like to have four.) Some families in our church have one, some two, some three, all the way up to six (the max), though a few years back there was a family with ten, including some adopted. Our previous pastor had two, our current pastor three. Just last night we had a session on birth control as part of a summer bioethics course, and the conclusions were similar to what Wilson posted: children are a blessing, there are legitimate reasons to abstain from such blessings/postpone them/limit their number, the decision rests with each family. That being said, there was teaching against birth control which can act as an abortifacient, but not barrier or natural/rhythm methods.

[Chaqar]

Background: I do not pretend to know Doug Wilson, but I have read Recovering the Lost Tools... and a handful of other publications written by his family (most recently, Loving the Little Years written by one of his daughters). We also use a few materials published by Veritas Press. The serious accusations in this thread compelled my own reading of his slavery booklet.

 

My conclusion is that this thread contains much misleading information. Among other things, he has been accused of being "pro-slavery" and his booklet an "apologia for slavery" which, while certainly a valid opinion, is hardly a complete summary of his more nuanced position as expressed, for instance, in these concluding remarks:

 

"Slavery was attended with evils. As it existed in the South, it was not in any way perfect or utopian. But too often the real problems with slavery were not the problems we have been told about. However, as discussed earlier, Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South. Furthermore, the cruel mistreatment given to some slaves is inexcusable and truly despicable. All such evil was wicked and indefensible. When modern Christians condemn such things, however, they must recognize that they are not condemning something defended by the South. This mistreatment was reprobated by the majority of ante bellum Southerners as well. Modern condemnations of these abuses are several centuries late."

 

I include the above quote not because I am interested in publicly defending him or his position, but for the sake of promoting accuracy.

 

An aside: my personal opinion on the Bible's take on slavery, FWIW, is that Paul encourages slaves to submit to their masters 'for the sake of the gospel'. In Christ we are told there is 'neither slave nor free', and it is a beautiful thing for God-given human value to be respected. Why, then, would he tell slaves to submit and not defend their God-given rights? A slave master would view a slave's rebellion as advantageous to the slave ("Of course you follow Christ; he says you don't have to serve me!"), while a slave's submission would promote God's goodness and faithfulness ("Wow, what's so amazing about God that you trust Him enough to lay down your rights?"). Christians are all called to follow the example of Christ who laid down his rights, enduring death on a cross. God can be trusted to exalt those who humble themselves. Any form of humbling oneself has ALWAYS been counter-cultural, so it does not go unnoticed...and, if done in faith, the gospel is promoted. God is in the process of redeeming even slavery. He is setting things right. Funny how it happens in the opposite way we might expect, though--not by a show of force.

 

ETA: I just read Kimber's post. She already explained what I was getting at in the last paragraph. :)

Edited August 4, 2011 by Chaqar

[Spy Car]

Christians should be quick to notice the discrepancies between biblical slavery and that practiced in the South. These differences between the biblical standard and Southern slavery do make impossible an unqualified defense of the institution as it existed and operated in the South.

 

Is Douglas Wilson serious? He can not make an "unqualified defense" of Southern slavery because it didn't fully live up to the biblical standards Of slavery, which (one must presume he is saying) would get his full throated and enthusiastic support?

 

So, for being less than "Utopian" biblical slavery his support of slavery as practiced in the South is a "qualified defense" rather than an "unqualified defense." Big deal.

 

Bill

[ScoutTN]

Just warning you that this topic is a big ole can 'o worms.

Understatement of the week!

 

I disagree with some of his theology and most of his application of it. I am a reformed Christian and I consider DW to be a false teacher. Not because absolutely everything he says is unbiblical or wrong, but because so much that is so is dangerous and deceptive.

 

Much of what has been posted in this thread was new to me. While I am glad to be better informed, I am disgusted to find that someone who claims the name of Christ promotes such horrific views and behavior. As pp have said, I find his opinions on women, marriage and family life, slavery, rape, child abuse (and probably a host of other things) revolting and clearly unbiblical. And I do have a seminary degree!

 

That said, I do use some VP materials and happily so. (My dc are not old enough for Omnibus yet, though)

And I do often enjoy his wife's blog. Femina

And his son's children's books. N.D.Wilson 100 Cupboards and sequels.

And his daughter's book and blog posts on parenting. Rachel Jankovic, Loving the Little Years, blog posts on desiringgod.org.

 

Also as pp have said, please do your own reading and investigating of orignial sources and draw your conclusions from those and not from hearsay.

Edited August 4, 2011 by ScoutTN

[Cricket]

You do not need to educate me, I am not speaking of what I think of the matter, merely trying to give the benefit of the doubt to a fellow believer. I do not know his reasoning behind this, but knowing what I know of him outside of the context of this thread, I have to believe that his intentions are good, no matter how misguided. Had my pastor been the minister at this wedding, I would be more than a little terrified, too. I can't conceive of his (that is, my pastor's) going against the state like this, too ... I think that's what bothers me the most. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's refers to more than just taxes. If you believe, as conservative Christians of a reformed bent most often do, that the power of justice should be in the hands of the state, then you should abide by their decisions, and the spirit of them, not look for loopholes to the letter. Just because there was no law against it does not make it right.

 

That being said, people of faith believe things that others can't understand, sometimes with cause. I was bulimic for 8 years, until one night in college I cried out to God (if he existed) to heal me. I have never since then had problems, even though I've been told many times that bulimia is like alcoholism and I would always be tempted.

 

That being said, I do not apply my situation here. I am not saying that I believe God healed this man, esp. given the court documents and the analysis of his character, only that I have experienced miraculous healing, and perhaps this pastor believes it has occurred here, too.

 

This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have a hard time getting my mind around the fact that Wilson would knowingly facilitate a marriage unless he truly believed that this guy was "healed." I have had a hard time getting this story out of my head since I learned about it here. It's just so awful. I don't believe Wilson is evil and delights in knowing a pedophile is married and will hopefully have children. He must truly believe Sitler has reformed. Sometimes a person can become so devoted to a worldview that it can blind them to reality. I believe God can heal people and change their lives but I also believe that sin has consequences in this life. This Sitler man gave up his future wife and children when he abused kids.

[Aelwydd]

This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have a hard time getting my mind around the fact that Wilson would knowingly facilitate a marriage unless he truly believed that this guy was "healed." I have had a hard time getting this story out of my head since I learned about it here. It's just so awful. I don't believe Wilson is evil and delights in knowing a pedophile is married and will hopefully have children. He must truly believe Sitler has reformed. Sometimes a person can become so devoted to a worldview that it can blind them to reality. I believe God can heal people and change their lives but I also believe that sin has consequences in this life. This Sitler man gave up his future wife and children when he abused kids.

 

Look, not to be too blunt, but situations like this have happened numerous times in both Catholic and Protestant churches. What makes Wilson so special as to gain immunity from the logical conclusions I and others here are making based on the evidence?

 

I'm so sick of the excuses made for shepherds who've either directly attacked those under their care, or protected the wolves who preyed on the lambs.

 

Why is it that Wilson "must truly believe Sitler is reformed?" Because you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that Wilson just might be living up to his reputation as a racist, misogynist bully?

 

I've got news for you. He can wrap himself up in "Jesus" all he wants, and he can write impassioned defenses for his brand of Christianity that you and others approve of. But defending his ilk is the same as those Catholics who defend the bishops covering up for priests. It's the same line of defense: "Well, he must truly have believed..."

 

Uh uh. You're (general you) in a position of power in the church? Guess what, I expect more of you, and your judgment. And if you're as educated as Wilson is, you also know how to access and read the tons of data out there that show the very high risk of child abusers relapsing. The Bible makes it very clear that leaders are to held to HIGHER standards of behavior and judgment. Making excuses for Wilson's abysmal judgment in this case does not speak well of the Church. Christ warned us about those who harmed His little ones.

 

Furthermore, if you really think Wilson is led by the Holy Spirit to enable this Sitler guy to have kids, would you leave your kids alone with Sitler? Think about that carefully.

 

I wouldn't let my ds. Never. Anymore than I'd let my ds alone with any of the sexual predators in the RCC, and I don't care if the Pope himself pledged their good behavior.

[simka2]

This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have a hard time getting my mind around the fact that Wilson would knowingly facilitate a marriage unless he truly believed that this guy was "healed." I have had a hard time getting this story out of my head since I learned about it here. It's just so awful. I don't believe Wilson is evil and delights in knowing a pedophile is married and will hopefully have children. He must truly believe Sitler has reformed. Sometimes a person can become so devoted to a worldview that it can blind them to reality. I believe God can heal people and change their lives but I also believe that sin has consequences in this life. This Sitler man gave up his future wife and children when he abused kids.

 

there is an entire chapter in ezekiel about false shepherds. God is very aware they exist.

[Joanne]

Originally Posted by eloquacious

That being said, people of faith believe things that others can't understand, sometimes with cause. I was bulimic for 8 years, until one night in college I cried out to God (if he existed) to heal me. I have never since then had problems, even though I've been told many times that bulimia is like alcoholism and I would always be tempted.

 

First, I love your username. :) My oldest went through a phase of trying to impress me (one of my degrees is in English, and I am a Language Arts teacher) with his vocabulary. He used the word "loquacious" frequently.

 

To address the quoted portion of your post. I believe in the hand of God and healing. When I was about 8, my mom told me that she had a "progressive disease called alcoholism" and that, in complete surrender, she called out to God in help. She felt Him touch her on the shoulder, and she died a few years back with 30-something years of sobriety.

 

In my own alcoholism, I avoided God because I knew he'd make me quit drinking and I didn't want to. ;) Eventually, I wanted to, and sure enough, he made me sober. I've had to step up to the plate since then with some earthly work, but it was God. It's been 20 years now.

 

But, for the record from a personal and professional standpoint, alcoholics aren't "always tempted". The chronic nature of alcoholism doesn't refer to the presence of temptation. Instead, it refers to the reality that should a sober alcoholic return to drinking, the effect of alcohol on the body remains as it was prior to sobriety; and the manifestation of a need for more will be present.

 

IM(personal)O, the level of temptation is related directly to issues of character, behavior, and spirituality. IM(professional)O, issues of temptation relate directly to where the client is in terms of changing their thinking, behavior, patterns, and emotional development.

 

Eating disorder recovery is also on a continuum. I'm glad that you are on the "healed" end of that continuum. Many, many thousands of wonderful people (mostly women) will never experience the peace on that end of the continuum. You are blessed.

[Ellesmere]

This is the only thing that makes sense to me. I have a hard time getting my mind around the fact that Wilson would knowingly facilitate a marriage unless he truly believed that this guy was "healed." I have had a hard time getting this story out of my head since I learned about it here. It's just so awful. I don't believe Wilson is evil and delights in knowing a pedophile is married and will hopefully have children. He must truly believe Sitler has reformed. Sometimes a person can become so devoted to a worldview that it can blind them to reality. I believe God can heal people and change their lives but I also believe that sin has consequences in this life. This Sitler man gave up his future wife and children when he abused kids.

 

And I don't believe that Wilson is a monster and delights in what he believes to be evil. Of course he believes he is doing right. He (ETA: probably) wouldn't be carrying on this nonsense if he didn't have what he believes to be good intentions.

 

But the bottom line is that he promotes some horrifying teachings about rape, HIV, and other topics. These aren't fringe topics for him. His sincerity and love for (what he believes to be the) truth does not justify the harm.

 

I say this knowing very well how hard it is to find out that people that you love are perpetuating disturbing beliefs. I understand that it is painful.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Clairelise

[Chaqar]

Spy Car, the larger point of the conversation is whether or not slavery is inherently evil or not.

 

Doug Wilson, in contrast with most Americans, argues that it is not evil in itself:

 

Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well.

 

This is an important distinction for two reasons (that I can think of), none of them having to do with Doug Wilson's personal enthusiasm for the institution. :tongue_smilie:

 

(1) Regarding Southern slavery, Wilson argues that it was possible for one to be both a Christian and a slaveholder to the extent that the slaveholding was akin to the indentured servitude form of slaveholding which God permitted of the Hebrews (it wasn't, in many cases, as Wilson acknowledges). Yet he also claims that a relationship of devotion between master and slave was, in fact, more prevalent in the South than we have been led to believe, citing Slave Narratives.

 

(2) More importantly, a Christian is told to consider himself a 'slave to Christ'. How could this be if slavery is, in itself, evil? Ephesians 6:5-9 reads:

 

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

 

In other words, a good master will rule over his slaves in a way that acknowledges that he himself is a under the authority of heaven. Slavery, in itself, is not something to be feared, given a kind and good master. Problem is, on earth, no such perfect master exists. But, still, the problem with slavery resides with the abuse of the master, not with slavery itself. Also, the Bible seems to speak of slavery differently than we might conceive of it. For example, it states that 'the borrower is slave to the lender'. That kind of slavery is rampant in our modern democratic society and hardly raises eyebrows, though we would certainly expect the lender to treat the borrower in a just manner. The Biblical notion of slavery seems to refer to one being obligated to another. Doesn't sound quite as horrid in that context, yet...

 

...the idea of slavery still grates against our firmly-held ideas of AUTONOMY!

Agree or disagree, that is Wilson's argument as I see it.

 

For the record, it might also be helpful to point out Doug Wilson's condemnation of racism:

 

Some Christians balk at having a sympathetic view of the South because they know that racism is evil. This following is a very important point to emphasize. Like abolitionism, all forms of race hatred or racial vainglory are forms of rebellion against God. Such things are to be vigorously opposed because the Word of God opposes them. In brief, God has raised up all nations from one man (Acts 17:26). We are all cousins. And not only are the races connected through God's creation of Adam, we are united (this time in harmony) in the redemption purchased by the Son of God.

[eloquacious]

First, I love your username. :)

Many, many thousands of wonderful people (mostly women) will never experience the peace on that end of the continuum. You are blessed.

 

 

Thank you... I like your name, too. (My name is JoAnne)

And yes, I know that I am blessed... moreso because the 8 years do not appear to have ravaged me physically the way that it can do for some. Ironically, the very foods I was most prone to binge on - breads, baked goods, and dairy products - are the foods I have discovered I cannot eat. (My digestive system can not tolerate gluten or casein.)

[elizabeth]

Look, not to be too blunt, but situations like this have happened numerous times in both Catholic and Protestant churches. What makes Wilson so special as to gain immunity from the logical conclusions I and others here are making based on the evidence?

 

I'm so sick of the excuses made for shepherds who've either directly attacked those under their care, or protected the wolves who preyed on the lambs.

 

Why is it that Wilson "must truly believe Sitler is reformed?" Because you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that Wilson just might be living up to his reputation as a racist, misogynist bully?

 

I've got news for you. He can wrap himself up in "Jesus" all he wants, and he can write impassioned defenses for his brand of Christianity that you and others approve of. But defending his ilk is the same as those Catholics who defend the bishops covering up for priests. It's the same line of defense: "Well, he must truly have believed..."

 

Uh uh. You're (general you) in a position of power in the church? Guess what, I expect more of you, and your judgment. And if you're as educated as Wilson is, you also know how to access and read the tons of data out there that show the very high risk of child abusers relapsing. The Bible makes it very clear that leaders are to held to HIGHER standards of behavior and judgment. Making excuses for Wilson's abysmal judgment in this case does not speak well of the Church. Christ warned us about those who harmed His little ones.

 

Furthermore, if you really think Wilson is led by the Holy Spirit to enable this Sitler guy to have kids, would you leave your kids alone with Sitler? Think about that carefully.

 

I wouldn't let my ds. Never. Anymore than I'd let my ds alone with any of the sexual predators in the RCC, and I don't care if the Pope himself pledged their good behavior.

 

Speak truth to power and defend those unable to protect themselves. Can I hear an amen to this woman's wise post??

[KnitWit]

Look, not to be too blunt, but situations like this have happened numerous times in both Catholic and Protestant churches. What makes Wilson so special as to gain immunity from the logical conclusions I and others here are making based on the evidence?

 

I'm so sick of the excuses made for shepherds who've either directly attacked those under their care, or protected the wolves who preyed on the lambs.

 

Why is it that Wilson "must truly believe Sitler is reformed?" Because you can't wrap your mind around the possibility that Wilson just might be living up to his reputation as a racist, misogynist bully?

 

I've got news for you. He can wrap himself up in "Jesus" all he wants, and he can write impassioned defenses for his brand of Christianity that you and others approve of. But defending his ilk is the same as those Catholics who defend the bishops covering up for priests. It's the same line of defense: "Well, he must truly have believed..."

 

Uh uh. You're (general you) in a position of power in the church? Guess what, I expect more of you, and your judgment. And if you're as educated as Wilson is, you also know how to access and read the tons of data out there that show the very high risk of child abusers relapsing. The Bible makes it very clear that leaders are to held to HIGHER standards of behavior and judgment. Making excuses for Wilson's abysmal judgment in this case does not speak well of the Church. Christ warned us about those who harmed His little ones.

 

Furthermore, if you really think Wilson is led by the Holy Spirit to enable this Sitler guy to have kids, would you leave your kids alone with Sitler? Think about that carefully.

 

I wouldn't let my ds. Never. Anymore than I'd let my ds alone with any of the sexual predators in the RCC, and I don't care if the Pope himself pledged their good behavior.

 

Amen.

[Spy Car]

Spy Car, the larger point of the conversation is whether or not slavery is inherently evil or not.

 

Doug Wilson, in contrast with most Americans, argues that it is not evil in itself:

 

 

 

This is an important distinction for two reasons (that I can think of), none of them having to do with Doug Wilson's personal enthusiasm for the institution. :tongue_smilie:

 

(1) Regarding Southern slavery, Wilson argues that it was possible for one to be both a Christian and a slaveholder to the extent that the slaveholding was akin to the indentured servitude form of slaveholding which God permitted of the Hebrews (it wasn't, in many cases, as Wilson acknowledges). Yet he also claims that a relationship of devotion between master and slave was, in fact, more prevalent in the South than we have been led to believe, citing Slave Narratives.

,

(2) More importantly, a Christian is told to consider himself a 'slave to Christ'. How could this be if slavery is, in itself, evil? Ephesians 6:5-9 reads:

 

 

 

In other words, a good master will rule over his slaves in a way that acknowledges that he himself is a under the authority of heaven. Slavery, in itself, is not something to be feared, given a kind and good master. Problem is, on earth, no such perfect master exists. But, still, the problem with slavery resides with the abuse of the master, not with slavery itself. Also, the Bible seems to speak of slavery differently than we might conceive of it. For example, it states that 'the borrower is slave to the lender'. That kind of slavery is rampant in our modern democratic society and hardly raises eyebrows, though we would certainly expect the lender to treat the borrower in a just manner. The Biblical notion of slavery seems to refer to one being obligated to another. Doesn't sound quite as horrid in that context, yet...

 

...the idea of slavery still grates against our firmly-held ideas of AUTONOMY!

Agree or disagree, that is Wilson's argument as I see it.

 

For the record, it might also be helpful to point out Doug Wilson's condemnation of racism:

 

In your post (#371) you say:

 

"My conclusion is that this thread contains much misleading information. Among other things, he has been accused of being "pro-slavery"

 

In this post you write:

 

"Doug Wilson, in contrast with most Americans, argues that it is not evil in itself"

 

Wilson, in fact, defends slavery as an institution. Slavery in his mind is pro-biblical and he is pro-slavery.

 

That does put him (way) apart from most Americans

 

As to the Slave Narratives painting a picture of "devotion" between masters and slaves, I have learn few claims that are more preposterous than this one. I have read dozens of Slave Narratives and "devotion" is not a word that springs to mind in the way the enslaved describe their cruel treatments under slave masters.

 

The reality is slaves were beaten and whipped, the women raped, and the children often taken forcibly from their mothers and sold down the river. Wilson covers up for the shameful crime of human slavery, just as he covers up for the child molester.

 

As I said from the beginning he is a revolting human being.

 

Bill

Edited August 4, 2011 by Spy Car

[CAMom]

I said up thread, in response to Bill, that I wouldn't call Doug Wilson revolting. After reading what's been brought out here (specifically, the molester info because I still haven't had time to read the slavery stuff) I think I may have to recant.

 

I do find the defense of and the blessing of marriage to a known child molester revolting behavior!:mad:

[Spy Car]

I said up thread, in response to Bill, that I wouldn't call Doug Wilson revolting. After reading what's been brought out here (specifically, the molester info because I still haven't had time to read the slavery stuff) I think I may have to recant.

 

I do find the defense of and the blessing of marriage to a known child molester revolting behavior!:mad:

 

:grouphug:

 

Bill

[Chaqar]

As to his being "pro-slavery", we'd need to define the term. I still find the label misleading given the direction of this thread, but you are right that he argues it is not inherently evil. My point: the label seems to imply that he supports crimes that he repeatedly condemns so it's not all that helpful of a label.

 

My understanding is that Slave Narratives is an actual text composed by journalists commisioned by FDR containing the testimonies of 2,300 former slaves. Haven't read it myself, just restating Wilson's claims. The atrocities you speak of that occurred to former slaves must not be diminished, I agree. I'm just not sure how we make the leap to therefore "he is a revolting human being." In the link to Wilson's writings on slavery that I read, he condemns the same crimes that you condemn.

 

As to his letter begging for leniency in the case of a child predator, I wonder what he would say in his defense (that is what is missing in this conversation). It is not my place to know his motives, but, from the outside, it sure looks like poor judgment on his part, at best. Admittedly, it looks bad. Really bad. I pray for God's protection over all the children potentially at risk.

[KnitWit]

It is also disturbing to me that *it seems* that noone bothered to inform the pastor and congregation of the church building the where the wedding took place of exactly *who* was being married. Under normal circumstances it might not matter, but in this case, it sure would have been courteous.

 

I read this by poking around further on that blog. In a more recent post, the author told that SHE called and talked with the pastor and found he did not know.

 

Lots of choices being made for lots of uninformed people by one person.

[Hope in God]

The whole thing is hard for me to understand too. I always tend to want to believe that there is a logical explanation and that the person in question would never knowingly do something wrong.

 

Unfortunately I have seen in some church circles (speaking charismatic here) how power corrupts and how perfect power corrupts perfectly. It is a very frightening thing to be in a position of power and this must be why the Bible exhorts Christians to pray for those in positions of leadership and power. Reputation is also a dangerous thing and I imagine this is why Jesus made himself a man of no reputaion and became the servant of all.

 

Phil. 2:5-8 (ESV)

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

 

It makes me want to cry when I see the power abuses perpetrated in the name of our Savior who came, never to grab power and reputation, but instead came as a suffering, servant.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Hope in God

[Spy Car]

As to his being "pro-slavery", we'd need to define the term. I still find the label misleading given the direction of this thread, but you are right that he argues it is not inherently evil.

 

You understate the case by a good deal. This position on slavery isn't that it is "not inherently evil." His position on slavery is that it is "biblical." this makes slavery, in Wilson's eyes, an institution that is approved by God.

 

That is something very different than "not inherently evil."

 

My understanding is that Slave Narratives is an actual text composed by journalists commisioned by FDR containing the testimonies of 2,300 former slaves. Haven't read it myself, just restating Wilson's claims. The atrocities you speak of that occurred to former slaves must not be diminished, I agree.

 

I could only urge you, one American to another, to read for yourself about the experiences the enslaved recall in the Slave Narratives.

 

If you do the lies of men like Douglas Wilson, who claim the slaves enjoyed their enslavement, will be throughly discredited and stand as what they are. Utter lies!

 

As to his letter begging for leniency in the case of a child predator, I wonder what he would say in his defense (that is what is missing in this conversation). It is not my place to know his motives, but, from the outside, it sure looks like poor judgment on his part, at best. Admittedly, it looks bad. Really bad. I pray for God's protection over all the children potentially at risk.

 

I can not begin to understand what he was thinking.

 

Bill

[Cricket]

The whole thing is hard for me to understand too. I always tend to want to believe that there is a logical explanation and that the person in question would never knowingly do something wrong.

 

Unfortunately I have seen in some church circles (speaking charismatic here) how power corrupts and how perfect power corrupts perfectly. It is a very frightening thing to be in a position of power and this must be why the Bible exhorts Christians to pray for those in positions of leadership and power. Reputation is also a dangerous thing and I imagine this is why Jesus made himself a man of no reputaion and became the servant of all.

 

Phil. 2:5-8 (ESV)

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

 

It makes me want to cry when I see the power abuses perpetrated in the name of our Savior who came, never to grab power and reputation, but instead came as a suffering, servant.

 

I'm not sure why I posted. I think I'm still trying to understand this and can't get that poor girl out of my head (the one that married Sitler), even though she is an adult and should know better herself. I was thinking after I posted that whenever someone acts, of course they are acting because they think it is right. I'm not trying to justify Wilson, just trying to understand. Maybe there isn't anything to understand but I still want to scream, WHY? Why would you do this?!, kwim?

[Chaqar]

You understate the case by a good deal. This position on slavery isn't that it is "not inherently evil." His position on slavery is that it is "biblical." this makes slavery, in Wilson's eyes, an institution that is approved by God.

 

Maybe I do. I never really know what someone means when they call something "biblical" anyway. It seems a confusing adjective. Does it mean "in the Bible" or "condoned by God"? Those are two very different things. I don't tend to use the descriptor for that reason. People throw it around rather liberally, IMO.

 

God's word on slavery seems clear in the New Testament--in Christ there is neither slave nor free. And, yet, Christians are now slaves to Christ. That's my kind of slavery. :001_smile: The kind that's not evil but downright good. I don't know that I can speak any more for Wilson. I don't necessarily hold his views (and I'm not even totally clear on what they are), but I did get the sense that his actual viewpoint has not been well-represented by the simplistic comments that have been tossed around here so I wanted to speak up and encourage a more careful reading of his own words.

 

I could only urge you, one American to another, to read for yourself about the experiences the enslaved recall in the Slave Narratives.

 

Excellent idea. I would like to read these for myself!

[Ellesmere]

I don't know that I can speak any more for Wilson. I don't necessarily hold his views (and I'm not even totally clear on what they are), but I did get the sense that his actual viewpoint has not been well-represented by the simplistic comments that have been tossed around here so I wanted to speak up and encourage a more careful reading of his own words.

 

 

I agree that careful reading is necessary. But the comments have not been totally simplistic, though.

 

And I went straight to Wilson's words, in context, to shed light on support for Peter Duesberg's horrific teachings. His views on r*pe and women are also disturbing.

 

I don't pretend it is easy to find out disturbing things about people that probably have sincere intentions.

[FO4UR]

Speak truth to power and defend those unable to protect themselves. Can I hear an amen to this woman's wise post??

 

 

Amen!

 

I am grieved over Katie Sitler, and all the other victims. Grieved.

 

The crazy views on slavery and HIV are too...crazy...to do too much harm on a wide scale, but the Sitler situation needs to be addressed...to put it mildly. I can't imagine what it would be like to be the child conceived by this marriage...knowing my mother and grandparents knew before I was even conceived and enabled.:crying::angry:

[Laurie4b]

My understanding is that Slave Narratives is an actual text composed by journalists commisioned by FDR containing the testimonies of 2,300 former slaves. Haven't read it myself, just restating Wilson's claims. .

 

I have read Slave Narratives. In the best of them, there is an expression of inferiority from the narrators and a terrible, dehumanizing acceptance of that inferiority and acceptance of dependence on a master. In the rest, there is the brutality that we think of.

 

Even a relatively good master could sell his slaves, or a creditor could claim them, or he could die and descendants could sell them. Having a "good master" was not equivalent to having a good life.

 

Also, the slave narratives, being collected so many years after the end of slavery, would not be drawing from a normative sample. It was a sample of those who had survived that long. Which slaves were more likely to survive and live a long life, those who had been relatively well treated or those who grew up and lived under horrific conditions? Today, we see a correlation between trauma in childhood and higher rates of cancer, heart disease, etc. as an adult. And the types of abuse that can lead to higher death rates is much milder than "medium" slavery. So my guess is that the sample was skewed to include more slaves from better conditions simply because those who had endured worse conditions were likely to die younger and wouldn't have been around by FDR's time.

[Laurie4b]

 

 

Excellent idea. I would like to read these for myself!

 

The Slave Narratives are online.

[Rivka]

I have read Slave Narratives. In the best of them, there is an expression of inferiority from the narrators and a terrible, dehumanizing acceptance of that inferiority and acceptance of dependence on a master. In the rest, there is the brutality that we think of.

 

Even a relatively good master could sell his slaves, or a creditor could claim them, or he could die and descendants could sell them. Having a "good master" was not equivalent to having a good life.

 

Also, the slave narratives, being collected so many years after the end of slavery, would not be drawing from a normative sample. It was a sample of those who had survived that long. Which slaves were more likely to survive and live a long life, those who had been relatively well treated or those who grew up and lived under horrific conditions? Today, we see a correlation between trauma in childhood and higher rates of cancer, heart disease, etc. as an adult. And the types of abuse that can lead to higher death rates is much milder than "medium" slavery. So my guess is that the sample was skewed to include more slaves from better conditions simply because those who had endured worse conditions were likely to die younger and wouldn't have been around by FDR's time.

 

This thread prompted me to look further into the slave narratives. The Library of Congress has a website with good background information and links to narratives organized by state. I think it's only a partial collection.

 

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro00.html

 

The webpage notes that the narratives were collected in the 1930s, 70 years after emancipation. As such, all of the ex-slaves were reporting distant memories, and a great many of the ex-slaves interviewed had only been slaves as children.

 

I also found an extremely enlightening reply to Wilson's pamphlet by two University of Idaho history professors. It can be found here. They point out that many of the ex-slaves interviewed for the WPA project were sharecroppers who had reason to fear retaliation if they criticized their former owners. Here's an interesting passage:

 

Wilkins and Wilson are clearly unaware, however, that in many cases the interviews that depict slavery negatively and those that speak positively about slavery are the products of separate interview sessions with the same individual. When speaking to a white interviewer, Susan Hamil of Charleston, South Carolina, remembered her former master as a good, Christian man who always treated her kindly. “He sure was a good man,” she emphasized. Yet when speaking to a black interviewer, Susan described the horrors of fatal whippings that “all de other slaves was made to watch.” The same woman who told a white interviewer that her former owner “just git his slaves so he could be good to dem,” nevertheless told a black interviewer that her fellow slaves “hated and detest both of them [master and his wife] and all de fambly.” “People was always dyin,” she explained, “from a broken heart.” The existence of such contradictory testimony is common knowledge to most introductory history majors. In fact, Susan Hamil’s interviews are frequently published in freshman historical methods textbooks.

I went through the LOC site and read the narratives for Maryland, because that's where I live. Some ex-slaves did say that they had been treated well. More than half described harsh and brutal treatment. Some reported that they personally had been treated well (one was the son of his owner, for example) but that other slaves on the plantation were treated horribly. Oddly enough, none of them supported Wilson's claim (in his pamphlet) that slaves only did three or four hours of easy work per day. Edited August 5, 2011 by Rivka

[Chaqar]

Wilson covers up for the shameful crime of human slavery, just as he covers up for the child molester.

 

Whether or not this is true, I believe this is a fair charge to make.

[BrandieRose]

Doug Wilson was my pastor for 10 years. He is a very thoughtful, kind man. I have watched so many broken marriages and family relationships healed through his counceling. He does have a lot of controversy surrounding him, but I've never found any of it to be true.

 

He is not "pro-slavery" in the way we had slavery in the U.S. In fact he is very much against it - and has said so many times. He simply believes we should have followed England's example in getting rid of it. Sadly, people have translated this as "pro-slavery".

 

I personally love his books. He has a very high regard for God and for the story God is playing out in this world. His love and excitement for what God is doing is contagious. If you have any specific questions I'd be happy to answer. Or you can ask him yourself at http://www.canonwired.com/

 

His blog is http://www.dougwils.com/

 

Don't mean to sound like a fan club. I just hate it when Christians gossip about other Christians without having the facts. Pastor Wilson has had a lot of that.

 

Brandie

[unsinkable]

And I just hate it when old threads are revived for the self-serving interests of brand new posters.

[milovany]

.

[milovany]

And I just hate it when old threads are revived for the self-serving interests of brand new posters.

 

Benefit of the doubt and all that: I can see where if you're a new post-er you might go back quite a ways, reading old threads. And newbies might not know that reviving an old thread is sorta kinda not done (esp. a controversial one). Other than that, I think her post was polite, if opinionated.

[Mrs Mungo]

Benefit of the doubt and all that: I can see where if you're a new post-er you might go back quite a ways, reading old threads. And newbies might not know that reviving an old thread is sorta kinda not done (esp. a controversial one). Other than that, I think her post was polite, if opinionated.

 

It is more likely an apologist who found this thread via google. Gossip is not a polite word to describe well-researched shared information.

[BrandieRose]

I know Doug Wilson personally. He was my pastor for over 10 years. He is a kind and gracious individual; and apparently a very misunderstood one.

 

Wilson is very much against the slavery that took place in the U.S. He simply disagrees with the method we used to get rid of it. He would have preferred that we followed in England's footsteps. The civil war took a lot of power away from individual states and gave it to the Federal Government. This is what he disagrees with. In England the church was able to get rid of slavery in a peaceful fashion. He is simply a presbyterian politically. He is not a racist.

 

He does believe the Bible allows for certain types of slavery. In the Bible, if you as a country attack another country and lose, the other country was allowed to make you into a slave nation. The reason for this is simple, you think twice about attacking another nation. It helped to keep peace. Of course, nobody in Africa ever attacked the U.S., therefore we were not allowed to have them as slaves.

 

Wilson does believe that men are the head of their home. He also believes that men should lay down their life for their wife just as Christ lay his life down for His wife the Church. He does not look down on women in any way. He simply believes we preach the gospels in our every day life, even in our marriage. Honestly, I have never been in a church where the ladies where honored as much as they are in Wilson's church. When Christopher Hitchens (athiest ), had dinner with the Wilsons, that was the one thing he couldn't get over - how well the ladies were treated.

 

Wilson is not against homeschooling. His assistant pastor is a homeschooler. Many of his elders are homeschoolers. For quite awhile his daughter homeschooled her children, as did his brother. I can see where this misunderstanding comes from, though. Wilson has a beef with people who say that homeschooling is the *only* Godly way to teach one's children. He then goes on and on defending christian schools. He doesn't really state his position clearly and if I only read his book I'd think he was against homeschooling too. What he is really against is individualism. We should be teaching our children within community. Co-ops would be included in that.

 

One note. One wonderful aspect of classical education is that facts are important. We carefully gather all the facts from primary sources in context and then logically think them through before speaking. I'm not really seeing that on this thread.

 

Thanks for reading,

 

Brandie