Douglas Wilson

[CAMom]

Revolting human being.

 

Bill

 

Well, I wouldn't call him revolting.;)

 

TNT, I'm thinking that you are a young Reformed man. Yes? You may want to look into Wilson's involvement with the "Federal Vision." This is consider very unorthodox by the majority of Reformed scholars.

 

Some decent material but the "Federal Vision" link makes him suspect.

[mommaduck]

Legalistic

Chauvenistic

Racist

Patriarchical

Arrogant

Poor logic

Punitive minded in religion and parenting matters

 

There is nothing he brings to the table of value that can't be found elsewhere without the ick.

 

Good summary.

[Spy Car]

The link below takes you to a page criticizing Wilson's work on slavery as being plagiarism. I have linked it because it allows you to read the work online.

 

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

 

This link is to the website's main page and contains other links to information about "Southern Slavery as It Was."

 

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

 

I googled a bit, but could not find any neutral commentary! This man is beloved or deplored!

 

For me, the slavery issue is a deal breaker. The corrupted thinking that brings him to the conclusions he draws regarding Civil War era history could not bring him to any conclusion I would ever consider.

 

Enjoy your reading. Beware of dragons.

 

I don't want to "defend" Douglas Wilson, but my understanding of the plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was (which was extensive) is that it was the act of his co-author, and Wilson was unaware.

 

He has published his re-worked views as "Black and Tan."

 

Bill

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I heard him speak at two conferences in the 80's and 90's, including a lot of time speaking personally with him. I've read several of his books and found out years later that he'd attended the same large church we went to decades later (One of my book club members had been in youth group with him, which just made me laugh to think of it. You don't think of adult writers as having been awkward teens.) I have taken away a lot of good things from listening to him and reading him.

 

I think that much of what he writes can be well thought out and inspiring. Both Repairing the Ruins and The Case for Classical Christian Education helped to convince me that deep study and thought about the classics was not somehow abandoning my children's education to evil influences. I think that the criticism of homeschooling in Repairing the Ruins should be read within the context of the fact that his family had recently helped to found a classical Christian school. He admitted that it was a lot of hard work, but I don't think he was willing to concede that such an education was out of reach, just because there wasn't already a school nearby. In The Case for Classical Christian Education, his chapter critical of homeschooling is paralleled by a chapter on the potential pitfalls in Christian schools. And I think his concerns are worth consideration on both sides.

 

There have also been things he's written that made me want to throw the magazine across the room. Some of them provoked me to thinking, while others were simply provoking (I don't for example, think that women's participation in sports is going to lead them into sinful relationships, as one of his columns suggested.) On the other hand, I very much appreciate his attitude that God created a world (including wine, women and song) that should be enjoyed and enjoyed fully, not feared or shunned. There is a lot of his writing available on the internet, including columns from the archives of Credenda/Agenda, which was a journal we enjoyed a lot when we were getting it several years ago.

 

I haven't read his writing on slavery (and don't have time at the moment, since I really need to finish cleaning the basement schoolroom). So I can't comment on that.

[Aelwydd]

Here is the link for those who want to read the slavery pamphlet (republished as Black and Tan) and decide for themselves. I like a lot of what he writes, and his wife moreso. But this pamphlet (along with the Wilkins materials sold through Veritas) led me away from Veritas and Omnibus materials.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm

http://www.canonwired.com/featured/southern-slavery/

 

 

After reading that tract, I can't understand how anyone could abide that man's venom. He admits that there were terrible abuses and crimes committed under Southern slavery (though he tries to downplay the widespread nature of these abuses), but he cannot bring himself to condemn the practice, lest he give ground in the great war on culture.

 

Nice man. Fine priorities. He'll sacrifice the freedom, and lives of men, women, and children to uphold his "godly, Christian" ideals of authority. Yes, that's exactly how Christ exercised authority. Endure and protect the rape, killings, and abuse of vulnerable people, like children, in order to assure that no one threatens His authority.

 

Cuz, Christ was all about authority. Yessiree. Submission is only for slaves, women, and children. Right?

 

On another note, I'd just like to point out, that while the African trade was in full swing, there was another large slave trade going on: the Barbar pirates, who managed to kidnap and enslave over a million Britons, French, and other Europeans, and then sold them to the slave markets in through out the Ottoman Empire. Most of these slaves were Christians.

 

Oh, beautiful, treacherous irony.

 

This happened because Islam allows for slavery too. Which, you know, obviously means that we should permit the legal institution of it. Since it's someone's religious belief that they have the right to enslave others.

 

But, I'll say this for the Ottoman slave trade: they usually gave the families of slaves back home opportunity to "buy back" the freedom of their loved ones. And Islam forbade the forced conversion of Christian slaves to Islam by their masters.

 

Which is more than I can say for the poor African slaves under Christian slave masters in the South.

[MrsBasil]

Uh, this isn't about the TLC designer?

 

::backs out quietly::

 

:)

 

 

OK, I'm glad it wasn't just me! :lol:

[SonshineLearner]

I can't think he supports slavery as happened in the South. Perhaps he's talking about slaves in the Bible? And confusing the two? And even slaves in the Bible, did they not get freed after a maximum of 7 years? Perhaps that's not correct. :(

[Literary Mom]

I struggle with deciding when to just filter someone and when to completely write them off. If you study the early church fathers (and later Reformers), you will find racist, sexist, etc. thinking promoted and lived - and yet, the church as we know it wouldn't be here without their contributions to church history and theology. For that matter, the same is true of the leading figures of the Bible. All of us are flawed by sin, but at what point is our Creator's image in a person, especially one who claims to follow Jesus, so tainted that their thoughts (expressed in books, articles, speaking, etc.) are no longer worth sifting through?

 

For me personally, I won't have anything to do with the Pearls or Bill Gothard or Vision Forum...but for many others, it's not as clear to me...especially friends who espouse patriocentricity or some components of it, for I've found that most people I know like to dabble without even seeing the inconsistencies in their theology or hypocrisy in their decision to become patriarchal or quiverfull, and coercing their husbands in that direction, or trying to.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Elle M.
typo

[Rivka]

Wilson’s biggest controversy was his co-authorship of a booklet called “Southern Slavery: As It Was.†The tract argues that the Bible approves of slavery and insists that slavery in the South “was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.â€

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center called the booklet “a repulsive apologia for slavery.â€

 

Wilson, who refers to himself as a “paleo-Confederate,†seems unrepentant, telling Christianity Today that he believes “the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war.â€

 

“You’re not going to scare me away from the word Confederate like you just said ‘Boo!’†Wilson told the magazine. “I would define a neo-Confederate as someone who thinks we are still fighting that war. Instead, I would say we’re fighting in a long war, and that [the Civil War] was one battle that we lost.â€

 

Wilson says if fundamentalists admit the Bible’s approval of slavery is outdated, their scripture-based attacks on abortion, feminism and homosexuality might be considered outdated too.

 

http://blog.au.org/2009/06/05/chucking-democracy-colson-headlines-paleoconfederates-conference-in-atlanta/

 

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.

[mommaduck]

I can't think he supports slavery as happened in the South. Perhaps he's talking about slaves in the Bible? And confusing the two? And even slaves in the Bible, did they not get freed after a maximum of 7 years? Perhaps that's not correct. :(

 

No, he's referring to slavery in the South. Trust me, it was much discussed on Reformed boards. There are Calvinists that hold to the view that slavery was God's way to bring a people to Christianity. (shall we discuss the fallacies to that?) :glare:

[DianeW88]

Douglas Wilson?? Uh......no.

[Mrs Mungo]

If you search Vision Forum, then you will find lots of locked threads on this. If you search providential, then you will also find lots of locked threads on this. You will also NOT find lots and lots of deleted threads. So, I'm not going to discuss it other than to say I have huge, giant problems with his worldview.

 

Other people have mentioned some of the reasons, but I'd rather not go into it again. There is still someone on my ignore list from the last go-round.

 

eta: I will not use Omnibus because of this. It is too big for me to filter and discuss every instance of providential view leaking through.

 

e(again)ta: I am hoping SWB finishes her next history volume soon! :D There are plenty of primary sources for modern history, I'm not as worried about that.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Natalieclare]

You know, I am a calvinist and I believe in original sin and total depravity but even so, calling a baby a "little sinner" creeps me out. Blech. :glare:

 

Ok, I had never heard this expression until I read it here on the boards. But now, I take perverse delight in calling my baby "little sinner". We love it in a creepilicious sort of way. :auto::auto::auto:

[SonshineLearner]

No, he's referring to slavery in the South. Trust me, it was much discussed on Reformed boards. There are Calvinists that hold to the view that slavery was God's way to bring a people to Christianity. (shall we discuss the fallacies to that?) :glare:

 

I still have to hope that it's misunderstood what he meant. Regardless of what they knew before, if they needed to know about Christianity, it seems like Love and not work would have brought them to Christ.

[Aelwydd]

I still have to hope that it's misunderstood what he meant. Regardless of what they knew before, if they needed to know about Christianity, it seems like Love and not work would have brought them to Christ.

 

Look, if you but simply read the document, which is attached to a post earlier on this thread, you can judge for yourself. He makes no qualms about defending Southern slavery. There is no mistake, and he, himself, makes no apologies or "clarifications" though he has had plenty of opportunity and time to do so.

[CAMom]

I called my oldest child a "little sinner" one day. He had exasperated me beyond belief and that's what popped out of my mouth.;) He was about 7 at the time.

 

He looked at me seriously and said, "Mommy. Don't you think you oughta take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck of dust out of mine?":lol: Well, yes. Maybe I should. :o

 

As for the slavery stuff-I haven't read any of that about Wilson before. I haven't paid attention to him for a few years since the Federal Vision thing. I'll do my research.

 

And, Bill, do you have a citation for the only propertied males should be allowed to vote claim? I'd be really interested in reading that, too.:)

[SonshineLearner]

Look, if you but simply read the document, which is attached to a post earlier on this thread, you can judge for yourself. He makes no qualms about defending Southern slavery. There is no mistake, and he, himself, makes no apologies or "clarifications" though he has had plenty of opportunity and time to do so.

 

I thought that it was mentioned that the attached wasn't his. Ok, I'll read it.... Misunderstood. ;(

[Mommy22alyns]

:iagree:

 

And don't even get me started on the issues of slavery, children and marriage.

 

My first introduction to him was receiving an issue of Credenda Agenda in the mail. I'm not sure how my name got on his mailing list, but I started to read and was immediately turned off by his condescending and judgmental tone. New magazines would arrive and they would get dropped in the recycle bin, unless my morbid curiosity would get the better of me or if I was really looking for a reason to get myself fired up. :tongue_smilie:

 

I started to watch the video of his debate with Hitchens at WTS and was so appalled with how everyone was treating Hitchens that I could not continue to watch it.

 

I don't like sharing the label "Reformed" with someone who is so vocal, pompous, and hateful (not to mention just WRONG in so many of his views).

 

 

:001_huh: I just got one in the mail today. I was wondering what the heck it was, now I'm rather curious as to how I got on the mailing list! Going back to read the thread the rest of the way...

[Mrs Mungo]

tnt, you will find more people on the curricula boards who agree with Doug. They don't post on the general forum. Some of the old threads are still there though.

[Aelwydd]

I struggle with deciding when to just filter someone and when to completely write them off. If you study the early church fathers (and later Reformers), you will find racist, sexist, etc. thinking promoted and lived - and yet, the church as we know it wouldn't be here without their contributions to church history and theology. For that matter, the same is true of the leading figures of the Bible. All of us are flawed by sin, but at what point is our Creator's image in a person, especially one who claims to follow Jesus, so tainted that their thoughts (expressed in books, articles, speaking, etc.) are no longer worth sifting through?[/Quote]

 

I don't struggle with it at all. You are overlooking one very significant difference between the early christian writers and persons like Mr. Wilson. That is, they were products of the surrounding times and culture. I can make some allowances for teachers like Tertullian, for example, because the man wasn't exactly exposed to progressive ideals. Same goes for much of the teachers in the Bible. What they taught was a continuation, with some modifications, of then-current social standards.

 

Doug Wilson, OTOH, lives in enlightened times. Society has learned why the writers in the Bible spoke of slavery as if it were something to be tolerated, like bigamy in some cases, but clearly it was not the ideal.

 

So, Wilson has the benefit of living in a society where masters can't rape their female servants at will, families can't be torn apart at the whims of their masters, and so forth--but he defends the practice??? As if it is part and parcel of the Gospel.

 

That is what I find so disgusting about this man. He teaches that the enslavement of humans, is something that is inseparable from the Gospel, and, therefore something to be looked upon by Christians with approval.

 

He should know better.

[TechWife]

I can't think he supports slavery as happened in the South. Perhaps he's talking about slaves in the Bible? And confusing the two? And even slaves in the Bible, did they not get freed after a maximum of 7 years? Perhaps that's not correct. :(

 

I still have to hope that it's misunderstood what he meant.

 

Sorry, I've read Southern Slavery As It Was in it's entirety. He is most definitely talking about slavery as it happened in the south, as indicated by the title.

Edited August 1, 2011 by TechWife

[mommaduck]

I struggle with deciding when to just filter someone and when to completely write them off. If you study the early church fathers (and later Reformers), you will find racist, sexist, etc. thinking promoted and lived - and yet, the church as we know it wouldn't be here without their contributions to church history and theology. For that matter, the same is true of the leading figures of the Bible. All of us are flawed by sin, but at what point is our Creator's image in a person, especially one who claims to follow Jesus, so tainted that their thoughts (expressed in books, articles, speaking, etc.) are no longer worth sifting through?

 

For me personally, I won't have anything to do with the Pearls or Bill Gothard or Vision Forum...but for many others, it's not as clear to me...especially friends who espouse patriocentricity or some components of it, for I've found that most people I know like to dabble without even seeing the inconsistencies in their theology or hypocrisy in their decision to become patriarchal or quiverfull, and coercing their husbands in that direction, or trying to.

 

Reformed, yes. Early Church Fathers, no, not if you are reading their actual letters rather than someone's interpretations of them.

[Aelwydd]

I thought that it was mentioned that the attached wasn't his. Ok, I'll read it.... Misunderstood. ;(

 

It wasn't "his" in the sense the much of the original document was plagiarized by his partner. However, he still contributed to it, and he still went to publish it with his full endorsement.

 

Regardless of who actually wrote it, Wilson read it, added to it, and put his name on it as someone who fully agreed with what was written, and indeed took credit for the ideas therein.

[CAMom]

Reformed, yes. Early Church Fathers, no, not if you are reading their actual letters rather than someone's interpretations of them.

 

I think that's key, isn't it? Same with Wilson. I want to make sure I read his own work instead of someone else's interpretation. The work cited upthread is an interpretation of Wilson (yes it includes quotes but are they in context?) within a blog posted criticizing Chuck Colson.

 

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

[Ginevra]

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'm not a Biblical literalist, but since nobody of that stripe has answered you yet, I just wanted to say I always found that one of the more glaring concerns with inerrancy.

 

It's much simpler to say the Biblical authors wrote from the times they lived in; thus, if you were a nice, fair slave-owner, then it was all good. :rolleyes:

[mommaduck]

I think that's key, isn't it? Same with Wilson. I want to make sure I read his own work instead of someone else's interpretation. The work cited upthread is an interpretation of Wilson (yes it includes quotes but are they in context?) within a blog posted criticizing Chuck Colson.

 

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

 

I didn't read the link. My own thinking on Wilson is from what I know of him within the Reformed world, which I was a part of for years. I know that big players; knew some personally. I remember the fallouts and debates. The different sides wanting to wage war with each other and dang near burning each other at the stake (figuratively, of course) as heretics. I've seen the good, the bad, the ugly, and even a mix of the above within people. I'm not going off of a blog nor speaking out of ignorance.

[Aelwydd]

I think that's key, isn't it? Same with Wilson. I want to make sure I read his own work instead of someone else's interpretation. The work cited upthread is an interpretation of Wilson (yes it includes quotes but are they in context?) within a blog posted criticizing Chuck Colson.

 

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

 

This linked document is not anyone else's "characterization" of him. This document is the one Wilson and his co-author claim to have written together. Wilson, for his part, stands by his contribution as original. His partner, on the other hand, apparently ripped his portion off of someone else, and committed plagiarism.

 

However, whether his partner's words were his own or not, Wilson apparently believed them to be legitimate, since he contributed to it and put his name on it. When word came out about the plagiarism, all Wilson decried was the dishonesty behind his partner's work. As far as I know, he did not dismiss or express disapproval for the ideals expressed in the document, itself.

 

That's an important distinction. He was okay with the message. Just not with how his partner took credit for that message.

[CAMom]

I didn't read the link. My own thinking on Wilson is from what I know of him within the Reformed world, which I was a part of for years. I know that big players; knew some personally. I remember the fallouts and debates. The different sides wanting to wage war with each other and dang near burning each other at the stake (figuratively, of course) as heretics. I've seen the good, the bad, the ugly, and even a mix of the above within people. I'm not going off of a blog nor speaking out of ignorance.

 

Oh! I didn't mean you were taking what other people say about Wilson and going off that. Sorry if it sounded that way.:)

 

I was just saying that I will go to Wilson's actual work and that if anyone asks me about him I will suggest they go to his actual work. I think that's the only way one can evaluate what others say about him.

 

Yes, I've been in the Reformed world for a long time, too.:) My husband was grilled during examination for becoming an elder in the PCA to ascertain whether or not he had any sympathy whatsoever for the Federal Vision.

 

Sorry, again, if it seemed as though I was challenging you. I just used your post as a jumping off point for my own thinking out loud.:)

[CAMom]

This linked document is not anyone else's "characterization" of him. This document is the one Wilson and his co-author claim to have written together. Wilson, for his part, stands by his contribution as original. His partner, on the other hand, apparently ripped his portion off of someone else, and committed plagiarism.

 

However, whether his partner's words were his own or not, Wilson apparently believed them to be legitimate, since he contributed to it and put his name on it. When word came out about the plagiarism, all Wilson decried was the dishonesty behind his partner's work. As far as I know, he did not dismiss or express disapproval for the ideals expressed in the document, itself.

 

That's an important distinction. He was okay with the message. Just not with how his partner took credit for that message.

 

Haven't read that link yet. I was referring to the text Bill quoted. I will definitely be reading the original work.:)

 

And I agree, the plagiarism is unacceptable.

[Rivka]

I think that's key, isn't it? Same with Wilson. I want to make sure I read his own work instead of someone else's interpretation. The work cited upthread is an interpretation of Wilson (yes it includes quotes but are they in context?) within a blog posted criticizing Chuck Colson.

 

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

 

A link to the full text of Southern Slavery As It Was is posted upthread, so no one needs to go by anyone else's characterization of Wilson's views. It's a short, albeit distressing, read.

[mommaduck]

Oh! I didn't mean you were taking what other people say about Wilson and going off that. Sorry if it sounded that way.:)

 

I was just saying that I will go to Wilson's actual work and that if anyone asks me about him I will suggest they go to his actual work. I think that's the only way one can evaluate what others say about him.

 

Yes, I've been in the Reformed world for a long time, too.:) My husband was grilled during examination for becoming an elder in the PCA to ascertain whether or not he had any sympathy whatsoever for the Federal Vision.

 

Sorry, again, if it seemed as though I was challenging you. I just used your post as a jumping off point for my own thinking out loud.:)

Ah! :D Okay, I understand now :) I agree though. Go straight to the source.

[Aelwydd]

A link to the full text of Southern Slavery As It Was is posted upthread, so no one needs to go by anyone else's characterization of Wilson's views. It's a short, albeit distressing, read.

 

Yes, I just re-posted it in my last reply, too!

[Ellesmere]

Wow, i had no idea he was so controversial!

But you understand now, right?

Seriously? This guy thinks we should still own slaves? And people buy his materials?

 

I've looked at Omnibus somewhat and it seemed like a good, rigorous curriculum even though I am not currently using it. I am suprised he has such a following if he is openly pro-slavery. Crazy.

 

Unfortunately I'm not surprised. But I spent a lot of time with people that told me my baby was a little sinner. They advocated infant corporal punishment since, in their eyes, a baby's cry for comfort was a sign of selfishness. They supported people that openly held racist views. They were big on homeschooling and would perhaps be more concerned with Wilson's being Reformed than with his views on slavery. Actually, his views on slavery would endear him to them since their homeschool leader made a point of displaying the confederate flag in his office. And it wasn't just 'cause he liked history.

:banghead:

[simka2]

But you understand now, right?

 

 

Unfortunately I'm not surprised. But I spent a lot of time with people that told me my baby was a little sinner. They advocated infant corporal punishment since, in their eyes, a baby's cry for comfort was a sign of selfishness. They supported people that openly held racist views. They were big on homeschooling and would perhaps be more concerned with Wilson's being Reformed than with his views on slavery. Actually, his views on slavery would endear him to them since their homeschool leader made a point of displaying the confederate flag in his office. And it wasn't just 'cause he liked history.

:banghead:

 

:crying: The problem is I know this exists as well. It just makes me sad.

[happygrrl]

We used to attend a Presbyterian church. Several families were really into Wilson, so I bought a set of his books (on theses boards!) to check him out. I was not even able to finish them. Learning about him and the Vision Forum/ Reconstructionist folks really threw us for a loop, as I could not see Christ joining any one of those groups, yet somehow the folks in them felt were were less 'Christian' than they were. :001_huh:

 

Not long after that we became Orthodox.

 

(p.s. I tried to sell that set on the boards not too long ago... I had forgotten how creepy they were! I am embarrassed. What do you do with weird books? I don't really want to put them in the thrift store in case some impressionable person picks them up and is damaged by them.)

[elegantlion]

This linked document is not anyone else's "characterization" of him. This document is the one Wilson and his co-author claim to have written together. Wilson, for his part, stands by his contribution as original. His partner, on the other hand, apparently ripped his portion off of someone else, and committed plagiarism.

 

However, whether his partner's words were his own or not, Wilson apparently believed them to be legitimate, since he contributed to it and put his name on it. When word came out about the plagiarism, all Wilson decried was the dishonesty behind his partner's work. As far as I know, he did not dismiss or express disapproval for the ideals expressed in the document, itself.

 

That's an important distinction. He was okay with the message. Just not with how his partner took credit for that message.

 

I read part of that, it made my hair stand on end. I really could go off on how it makes me feel right now, but it wouldn't sound too intelligent.

 

I'll just add a :confused:.

 

 

(p.s. I tried to sell that set on the boards not too long ago... I had forgotten how creepy they were! I am embarrassed. What do you do with weird books? I don't really want to put them in the thrift store in case some impressionable person picks them up and is damaged by them.)

 

Throw them away. I love and adore real books, but I've never felt remorse about tossing a few books.

[Tutor]

Like most people, I like some things about him, dislike others.

[eloquacious]

Like most people, I like some things about him, dislike others.

 

I'm with you...though I never read his text on Slavery, from discussions in our church, where most have read his works, I always believed that he didn't "favor" slavery, as much as that he disapproved of common conceptions of the civil war. I have thought based on other internet writings that Doug Wilson believes that in time as the gospel was spread, reform would have come the same way that it did in England, without a civil war. I don't think he is advocating that we should still have slavery today.

 

I may have to read Black and Tan after all. :-/

[eloquacious]

This is what I based my thoughts on: http://www.canonwired.com/featured/southern-slavery/

[dtsmamtj]

:lurk5: Pulling up my tub to watch as well. Could you pass the seasoning salt?

 

 

:iagree:

[QuirkyKapers]

Oh bother! Is this the same guy who wrote the Lost Tools of Learning that CC has in their catalogue?

[FaithManor]

I just found this, you might enjoy it (or not) :tongue_smilie:

 

In an interview with Christianity Today, Wilson distanced himself from the Reconstructionist label, but not the movement’s harsh views.

 

Asked if he would execute gays, he replied, “You can’t apply Scripture woodenly. You might exile some homosexuals, depending on the circumstances and the age of the victim. There are circumstances where I’d be in favor of execution for adultery…. I’m not proposing legislation. All I’m doing is refusing to apologize for certain parts of the Bible.â€

 

OK. That makes us feel better – not!

 

Wilson’s biggest controversy was his co-authorship of a booklet called “Southern Slavery: As It Was.†The tract argues that the Bible approves of slavery and insists that slavery in the South “was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.â€

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center called the booklet “a repulsive apologia for slavery.â€

 

Wilson, who refers to himself as a “paleo-Confederate,†seems unrepentant, telling Christianity Today that he believes “the South was right on all the essential constitutional and cultural issues surrounding the war.â€

 

“You’re not going to scare me away from the word Confederate like you just said ‘Boo!’†Wilson told the magazine. “I would define a neo-Confederate as someone who thinks we are still fighting that war. Instead, I would say we’re fighting in a long war, and that [the Civil War] was one battle that we lost.â€

 

Wilson says if fundamentalists admit the Bible’s approval of slavery is outdated, their scripture-based attacks on abortion, feminism and homosexuality might be considered outdated too.

 

http://blog.au.org/2009/06/05/chucking-democracy-colson-headlines-paleoconfederates-conference-in-atlanta/

 

Bill

 

Might I just puke and get it over with? I always thought the man had some screws loose and I knew he and Doug Phillips were of the same ilk, but I didn't know just how bad it was.

 

I'd like to barf on his shoes!

 

Faith

[CAMom]

A link to the full text of Southern Slavery As It Was is posted upthread, so no one needs to go by anyone else's characterization of Wilson's views. It's a short, albeit distressing, read.

 

I understand that and just haven't had time to read it yet.:)

[happygrrl]

Throw them away. I love and adore real books, but I've never felt remorse about tossing a few books.

 

Thank you! I love the 'real books' distinction :D.

[elizabeth]

I am particularly disturbed by WHY these two men feel that a college education is acceptable for women. I had no idea how completely opposed to their worldview I was until this. From the horse's mouth. Ahem.:lol:

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/women-college/

[FaithManor]

I am particularly disturbed by WHY these two men feel that a college education is acceptable for women. I had no idea how completely opposed to their worldview I was until this. From the horse's mouth. Ahem.:lol:

http://www.canonwired.com/ask-doug/women-college/

 

 

Elizabeth, shame on you for posting this! I just had to go out there and watch it, morbid curiosity being what it is, and nearly sprayed peanut butter cookie crumbs out my nose. :D

 

Faith

[MSNative]

Oh bother! Is this the same guy who wrote the Lost Tools of Learning that CC has in their catalogue?

 

Andrew Kern wrote LTOW. As far as I know, he doesn't have anything to do with Douglas Wilson (though I had no idea who DW was before this thread.)

There is nothing that I could find on the Circe site about him.

 

Douglas Wilson is part of Veritas and Omnibus, is that right?

[elegantlion]

Andrew Kern wrote LTOW. As far as I know, he doesn't have anything to do with Douglas Wilson (though I had no idea who DW was before this thread.)

There is nothing that I could find on the Circe site about him.

 

Douglas Wilson is part of Veritas and Omnibus, is that right?

 

Wilson wrote Rediscovering the Lost of Learning.

 

Kern's program is Lost Tools of WRITING, not related.

[FaithManor]

I can't get the video to load. Care to share the main gist?

 

 

The main theme was that a woman should attend college because an ignorant wife is a burden to her husband. It was all about being prepared to be a help-meet and had nothing to do with the value of education for the female herself. It was very male oriented, as if a female does not have value outside of marriage and that the education was for the purpose of making her fit for marriage and not for sake of getting an education and developing her as a person.

 

I knew a preacher (UGH) one time that said this from the pulpit, "The only reason to send a girl to college is so she can get her M.R.S. degree and will be fit to raise boys." STUUUUUUUPID man....he was taken out of the sanctuary and fired by the deacons and church board. Open big, fat chauvenistic mouth, insert big, fat, chauvenistic foot. Bye, bye job...bye, bye!

 

So if you watch the video, keep a barf bucket nearby in case you hurl!

 

Faith

Edited August 2, 2011 by FaithManor

[Parrothead]

Oh bother! Is this the same guy who wrote the Lost Tools of Learning that CC has in their catalogue?

Dorothy Sayers wrote the Lost Tools of Learning.