Omnibus/Douglas Wilson fact gathering?

[simka2]

I am simply try to ascertain the level of Douglas Wilson's involvement in Omnibus. Have there been changes? I would really appreciate your observations on this. It was a question that did come up in the thread on the general forum. In an attempt to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" I would really like to have a better grasp on the depth his beliefs penetrate this program.

 

Thanks! and it would be lovely if we could keep our thoughts about him on the other thread. ;)

[Mimm]

:bigear: I'm curious. :)

[forty-two]

What I do know is that in the past couple of years or so, VP brought on a new editor to work on Omnibus, Gene Veith (here is a post on Veith's blog about it). Veith is Lutheran (also a professor and provost at Patrick Henry College), and he stated in a comment that he was mitigating some of the Reformed influence. Omnibus IV lists Veith as an editor, along with Wilson. I don't know whether Veith was actually working with Wilson, or if Wilson is listed b/c of his previous work on Omnibus (I'll email Veith about it).

 

I respect Gene Veith a lot, and he certainly isn't involved in patriarchy or any of that mess. And as for the Federal Vision stuff, which I started reading about b/c of the previous thread, it's a Reformed thing, he's not going to have any of that influencing him, either. (Though the FV emphasis on a high view of the Sacraments is almost Lutheran in nature, actually; but combining it w/ Calvinism just kills it entirely, makes me want to hate God even more than just Calvinism in general :glare:.)

 

So the fact VP brought in a new editor, one that isn't Reformed at all, kind of suggests they are trying to distance themselves from Wilson, but isn't conclusive.

 

ETA: Veith is listed first on the cover of the book, but not in the description on VP, which just lists Wilson :glare:.

Edited August 2, 2011 by forty-two

[simka2]

What I do know is that in the past couple of years or so, VP brought on a new editor to work on Omnibus, Gene Veith (here is a post on Veith's blog about it). Veith is Lutheran (also a professor and provost at Patrick Henry College), and he stated in a comment that he was mitigating some of the Reformed influence. Omnibus IV lists Veith as an editor, along with Wilson. I don't know whether Veith was actually working with Wilson, or if Wilson is listed b/c of his previous work on Omnibus (I'll email Veith about it).

 

I respect Gene Veith a lot, and he certainly isn't involved in patriarchy or any of that mess. And as for the Federal Vision stuff, which I started reading about b/c of the previous thread, it's a Reformed thing, he's not going to have any of that influencing him, either. (Though the FV emphasis on a high view of the Sacraments is almost Lutheran in nature, actually; but combining it w/ Calvinism just kills it entirely, makes me want to hate God even more than just Calvinism in general :glare:.)

 

So the fact VP brought in a new editor, one that isn't Reformed at all, kind of suggests they are trying to distance themselves from Wilson, but isn't conclusive.

 

ETA: Veith is listed first on the cover of the book, but not in the description on VP, which just lists Wilson :glare:.

 

I appreciate this. If you do get a chance to email him please let us know what he says. I am sure it is a somewhat difficult situation, but the more info we have the better chance of not chucking the entire curriculum.

 

Edited: I can't access the blog. It says, "Forbidden."

[forty-two]

I appreciate this. If you do get a chance to email him please let us know what he says. I am sure it is a somewhat difficult situation, but the more info we have the better chance of not chucking the entire curriculum.

 

Edited: I can't access the blog. It says, "Forbidden."

Wow, I totally screwed up that url :001_huh::glare:. It should be fixed now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Is Doug Wilson tied to Classical Conversations as well? I appreciate any info since this is confusing. I do know I want nothing to do with Doug Wilson and his ilk:glare:.

[elegantlion]

:bigear: Thanks for starting this thread.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Is Doug Wilson tied to Classical Conversations as well? I appreciate any info since this is confusing. I do know I want nothing to do with Doug Wilson and his ilk:glare:.

 

I don't think there is a connection with CC. CC uses cards from Veritas Press, which also publishes Omnibus. But I don't think that they use much beyond the cards themselves.

[G5052]

I don't think there is a connection with CC. CC uses cards from Veritas Press, which also publishes Omnibus. But I don't think that they use much beyond the cards themselves.

 

And in 2012-2013 the plan is to go to their own timeline product, not because of doctrinal issues, but to reflect their own goals and priorities.

 

They do sell some other Veritas Products and such, but so do many other homeschool vendors.

 

Also, it is good to note that Doug Wilson edited Omnibus, but by no means was he the only author. Each of the Omnibus volumes has multiple authors. Whether that bothers you or not...well, I'll bow out on that one!

[SonshineLearner]

Is Doug Wilson tied to Classical Conversations as well? I appreciate any info since this is confusing. I do know I want nothing to do with Doug Wilson and his ilk:glare:.

 

Not that it's necessarily bad, but last time I looked, State Directors had to read at least one of his books, and they do comment about him. Now, I had never heard the upsetting news about him, and so won't further comment. BUT, I have to say I'm very sad about news I've read in the last threads. AND, I'm not sure that just because he has horrible beliefs with some things, that everything is without worth. Particularly with Lutherans, that might have you come to other conclusions about Luther. I didn't realize his last few years of belief and disenchantment with certain people until I read up on him. Quite sad, although perhaps his was because of dementia? At least when I read information dementia was the only reason I could see a turn such as he had. :(

[simka2]

And in 2012-2013 the plan is to go to their own timeline product, not because of doctrinal issues, but to reflect their own goals and priorities.

 

They do sell some other Veritas Products and such, but so do many other homeschool vendors.

 

Also, it is good to note that Doug Wilson edited Omnibus, but by no means was he the only author. Each of the Omnibus volumes has multiple authors. Whether that bothers you or not...well, I'll bow out on that one!

 

This is what I am trying to wrap my head around, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I think I am a little confused. Is he an editor or an author of Omnibus?

 

Edited: Who are the authors?

Edited August 2, 2011 by simka2

[simka2]

The only authors I can find are a pastor at Douglas Wilson's church and the professor of Philosophy at St. Andrews. :blink:

[forty-two]

I know that Dr. Veith said there were extensive contributions in IV from himself, his daughter (a classical educator), and John Montgomery, and he and his daughter were also contributing several essays to V.

[G5052]

This is what I am trying to wrap my head around, so I appreciate you bringing it up. I think I am a little confused. Is he an editor or an author of Omnibus?

 

Edited: Who are the authors?

 

Here's a sample of Omnibus I:

 

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=PgLPOn-8pZcC#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

If you look at the table of contents, you can see that there is indeed a number of other authors.

 

I'm not trying to contribute to the argument either way (which is why I've stayed away from the General Board discussion), but facts are facts when there is an online sample to show ;).

Edited August 2, 2011 by GVA

[simka2]

Here's a sample of Omnibus I:

 

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=PgLPOn-8pZcC#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

If you look at the table of contents, you can see that there is indeed a number of other authors.

 

I'm not trying to contribute to the argument either way (which is why I've stayed away from the General Board discussion), but facts are facts when there is an online sample to show ;).

 

I appreciate that! It was my intent to find out exactly how much of Omnibus was connected to Wilson and his acolytes. I am going to do some looking into these names. I already know 4 of them are directly connected to him. It is what it is. I just wanted to make sure that getting new editors wasn't a smokescreen for those of us who would be uncomfortable.

Ultimately, I will be reading them for myself, but in the fact finding stage I like to know where the authors stand.

 

Hope that made sense!:D

[Mimm]

I appreciate that! It was my intent to find out exactly how much of Omnibus was connected to Wilson and his acolytes.

 

Same here. I love the idea of Omnibus, so I'm very curious about the many people who have influenced it. Let me know what you find. :)

[simka2]

Same here. I love the idea of Omnibus, so I'm very curious about the many people who have influenced it. Let me know what you find. :)

 

So far I have made it through half the list of authors. Every one is either a Pastor at Trinity Church in Moscow, ID., a fellow at New St. Andrews, on staff at Logo's School, or the spouse of one of the above. I feel kinda sad right now.

 

Edited: There are a couple who are from Veritas Academy like G. Tyler Fischer.

Edited August 2, 2011 by simka2

[Zoo Keeper]

Same here. I love the idea of Omnibus, so I'm very curious about the many people who have influenced it. Let me know what you find. :)

 

Thanks for asking this...:bigear:

[Mimm]

So far I have made it through half the list of authors. Every one is either a Pastor at Trinity Church in Moscow, ID., a fellow at New St. Andrews, on staff at Logo's School, or the spouse of one of the above. I feel kinda sad right now.

 

Edited: There are a couple who are from Veritas Academy like G. Tyler Fischer.

 

:( So even if Wilson isn't directly contributing to Omnibus anymore, it's fair to say his views are probably influencing it quite a bit still. Thanks for doing the leg work on this Simka.

[amtmcm]

We are not reformed, not Calvinist, and I'm shocked to read on the General Forum about some of Douglas Wilson's quotes. That said, we used Omnibus II last year and will use Omnibus III this year.

 

Other than the outright discussions about predestination, DD and I didn't take issue with any of the essays or assignments in Omnibus. DD had to write a paper on Predestination versus Free-will for her VPSA class and received an A even though her instructor believes in Predestination and she doesn't.

 

We found some very slight difference of opinion; for instance, the essay on Tale of Two Cities says Dickens doesn't develop Lucie Manette's character and we didn't agree with that. No biggie, it was a good point for discussion.

 

It's very beneficial to know where an author is coming from so you can put up your radar, and I'm glad to be aware of this now. But I wanted to add my two cents so people don't completely write off Omnibus in light of the current threads on the forum. There are very large samples of the texts available on Veritas Press' website so people can assess for themselves.

[simka2]

:( So even if Wilson isn't directly contributing to Omnibus anymore, it's fair to say his views are probably influencing it quite a bit still. Thanks for doing the leg work on this Simka.

 

Well I have been pretty lazy in actually writing down who belongs where. That said I did sit here for an hour googleing names and finding out where they fit. The info is out there. ;)

 

We are not reformed, not Calvinist, and I'm shocked to read on the General Forum about some of Douglas Wilson's quotes. That said, we used Omnibus II last year and will use Omnibus III this year.

 

Other than the outright discussions about predestination, DD and I didn't take issue with any of the essays or assignments in Omnibus. DD had to write a paper on Predestination versus Free-will for her VPSA class and received an A even though her instructor believes in Predestination and she doesn't.

 

We found some very slight difference of opinion; for instance, the essay on Tale of Two Cities says Dickens doesn't develop Lucie Manette's character and we didn't agree with that. No biggie, it was a good point for discussion.

 

It's very beneficial to know where an author is coming from so you can put up your radar, and I'm glad to be aware of this now. But I wanted to add my two cents so people don't completely write off Omnibus in light of the current threads on the forum. There are very large samples of the texts available on Veritas Press' website so people can assess for themselves.

 

Thanks for your response. I agree. First I wanted to ascertain where the authors were coming from, then I wanted to read thru Omni with that understanding. That said, I am not in a major hurry to do the latter. ;) I have a bit of time before mine are ready. :D

[G5052]

It's very beneficial to know where an author is coming from so you can put up your radar, and I'm glad to be aware of this now. But I wanted to add my two cents so people don't completely write off Omnibus in light of the current threads on the forum. There are very large samples of the texts available on Veritas Press' website so people can assess for themselves.

 

Not excusing what has been brought up here, but virtually every fiction and non-fiction author has "issues" if you dig deep enough. It is the nature of humanity, I'm afraid. I've used plenty of authors in our schooling whose beliefs and person lives don't hold up to scrutiny. Thomas Jefferson and Charles Dickens come to mind. Amazing writers, but both had beliefs that I can't agree with and both made life choices that trouble me. How could Thomas Jefferson write about freedom and keep slaves? How could Dickens write about family relationships and love while being separated from his wife?

 

The bottom line IMHO is to read what they wrote and go from there.

[simka2]

Not excusing what has been brought up here, but virtually every fiction and non-fiction author has "issues" if you dig deep enough. It is the nature of humanity, I'm afraid. I've used plenty of authors in our schooling whose beliefs and person lives don't hold up to scrutiny. Thomas Jefferson and Charles Dickens come to mind. Amazing writers, but both had beliefs that I can't agree with and both made life choices that trouble me. How could Thomas Jefferson write about freedom and keep slaves? How could Dickens write about family relationships and love while being separated from his wife?

 

The bottom line IMHO is to read what they wrote and go from there.

 

I think there is a bit of a difference. Thomas Jefferson does not benefit financially from me buying books he wrote. ;) There is also the difference between a "living book," to use a CM phrase, and entrusting the entire framework of my childs education to a group writing from a particular belief set.

 

I hope that made some sense. :001_smile:

[Hope in God]

I think there is a bit of a difference. Thomas Jefferson does not benefit financially from me buying books he wrote. ;) There is also the difference between a "living book," to use a CM phrase, and entrusting the entire framework of my childs education to a group writing from a particular belief set.

 

I hope that made some sense. :001_smile:

 

Thank-you for bringing this up! I was about to put all my chips on Omnibus. I guess my tendency to procrastinate saved me on this one. Seeing the commentary included after every historical work really freaked me out because it seems to be a way to thoroughly train a child in this type of worldview.

 

It is so difficult to find a curriculum that is balanced, as in not too legalistic and not too loosey goosey. This really takes Omnibus off the table for me and now I am left with TOG, which seems like a lot of work, or Wise Bauer's new history, which may be too biased and thus not entirely historically accurate (based on what I have read on amazon).

 

What to do? What to do??

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Or a wtm/wem style reading of the same works (or similar great books) that Omnibus uses.

 

I keep my older edition wtm partly to review the suggestions from back before all the history packages were written. SWB's history is a great read, but it is still a secondary source and a survey history.

 

You can always just read and discuss and write.

[Hope in God]

Is the older version of WTM different than the current version?

 

Is there anyone who has read the other thread about DW that can confirm or deny his type of worldview coming through in the Omnibus commentary? What does the commentary add to the program?

 

Sebastian, could a person just read the books used in Omnibus without the commentary? I'm not sure that I have a firm enough grasp to pull that sort of thing off. :001_unsure:

[angela in ohio]

SWB's books for high school replaced Spielvogel, which was also a history survey and secondary source. Other than that, nothing has changed with the actual literature. I prefer the older edition, simply because (1.) I am still using Spielvogel, and (2.) I am using the older recommendations for my little guy (there were greater changes in the grammar stage.)

 

Omnibus is influenced by Wilson's Reformed views. VP is a Reformed organization, so no surprise there. [As an aside: Most of the people who have a problem with it really aren't its audience, and some of us appreciate having a Reformed option in curriculum. :001_smile: And like it or not, the classical education movement in private schools and homeschooling was shouldered for many years by Reformed folks and specifically Doug Wilson, VP, ACCS, etc. I'm sure even more non-Reformed choices will spring up in the coming years as it becomes more mainstream.] Omnibus is not, in what I have used (I and IV, and worked through II and V for this year) influenced by his "jump the shark" views. I don't know where the Detweilers stand on those issues, but I don't see it in Omnibus.

 

You can read the books without using Omnibus; at that point, you are better off with WTM because at least you will have guidance on how to approach the books, how to write, etc. You don't need to use SWB's history works to do it (I don't, though my dc have read them.)

 

I would honestly recommend not taking your curriculum advice from Amazon.com (or even primarily from this board.) You really have to read the materials to see for yourself. If you are choosing 4-6 years of history, literature, and Bible curriculum, it is worth getting one to actually work through and decide, be it TOG, Omnibus, or WTM.

[MorningGlory]

I would honestly recommend not taking your curriculum advice from Amazon.com (or even primarily from this board.) You really have to read the materials to see for yourself. If you are choosing 4-6 years of history, literature, and Bible curriculum, it is worth getting one to actually work through and decide, be it TOG, Omnibus, or WTM.

 

:iagree:Great advice.

 

I tried to read through Omnibus I, but I could not get past what I perceived as "dripping condescension" on many pages. I did not like the tone of the book at all. When I shared this with my friends irl, they had no idea what I was talking about. It may just be my biased opinion of DW shining through (my first experience with reading his stuff resulted in my throwing a book across the room...not Omnibus...that would have created quite a mess...lol!).

 

Anyway, in Omnibus, it was not WHAT was said, but HOW it was said that bothered me so much. I will never use it (and I'm Reformed).

[Julie in PA]

If you would like to know more about the vision of Omnibus or Veritas Press Scholaras Academy, you can contact Bruce Etter at bruce@veritaspress.com. There has been a lot of false information thrown around lately. I think he could clear some things up for you.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Is the older version of WTM different than the current version?

 

Is there anyone who has read the other thread about DW that can confirm or deny his type of worldview coming through in the Omnibus commentary? What does the commentary add to the program?

 

Sebastian, could a person just read the books used in Omnibus without the commentary? I'm not sure that I have a firm enough grasp to pull that sort of thing off. :001_unsure:

 

I think that you could find lots of commentary for many of the books. Both the Well Trained Mind and The Well Educated Mind give some guidance. You might look at works like How to Read a Book by Adler. (I know there is another similar work that others have preferred, but the name escapes me.)

 

You could even look at things like Spark Notes or Cliff Notes for assistance in seeing the significance of specific scenes in a book or symbolism. The works covered in Omnibus have been read for a very long time and there is a lot of thought and writing about them to be found if you look. The books were included in Omnibus because they are considered some of the Great Books; they don't get their value because they were in Omnibus.

 

Try looking for threads about reading Great Books.

 

The reason I have kept my older WTM (even though I recently bought a newer edition) is that it was written before many of the programs, packages and homeschool specific works were available. So it is built more on the expectation that you would read an overview of history and science from something like a history or science encyclopedia and then flesh out specific events and biographies and science topics with books from the library.

 

I love newer works like SOTW, but sometimes it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that a reading list and commentary has to be prepared for me. (But then, I've been known to write counter arguments in my teacher manuals next to their notes on a text.)

 

You might enjoy the SWB lecture on Teaching Ourselves. You can download it from Peace Hill Press' site. It covers a lot of the concepts about reading great books that are also covered in The Well Educated Mind.

 

Hope this helps.

[8filltheheart]

And like it or not, the classical education movement in private schools and homeschooling was shouldered for many years by Reformed folks and specifically Doug Wilson, VP, ACCS, etc.

 

I'm sure even more non-Reformed choices will spring up in the coming years as it becomes more mainstream.] .

 

Ignoring the entire Wilson controversy, I do wonder about the above statement. If you qualified the statement and targeted it toward Protestant curriculum, it might be accurate. (I honestly have no idea.) However, by 1998, Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum was in its 3rd printing. Kolbe Academy was providing materials to homeschoolers in 1993. I'm not that familiar with VP and Onmibus, but aren't they "newer" generation homeschool providers/materials?

[Tullia]

Ignoring the entire Wilson controversy, I do wonder about the above statement. If you qualified the statement and targeted it toward Protestant curriculum, it might be accurate. (I honestly have no idea.) However, by 1998, Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum was in its 3rd printing. Kolbe Academy was providing materials to homeschoolers in 1993. I'm not that familiar with VP and Onmibus, but aren't they "newer" generation homeschool providers/materials?

 

I agree with this qualification. While I appreciate the efforts of the Reformed folks who've produced curriculum in recent years, my earliest classical education mentors were Roman Catholic. I've used curriculum from both groups successfully even though my family is non-denominational.

 

We used Omnibus I, and I would give it generally positive reviews. However, many of the interpretations are decidedly Reformed in perspective. I don't remember seeing overt examples of the dominion or patriarchy themes. For several reasons, I decided against using later Omnibus volumes and chose Spielvogel beginning in 8th grade. I knew that life was going to be hectic in high school, and I wanted to use a spine with more neutral content. Also, this was several years ago; I didn't want the additional worry of not knowing if the VP publishing schedule was going to fit our schedule.

 

I was aware of Mr. Wilson's opinions about homeschooling before buying Omnibus, but it was only later-- after reading his magazine that I started to have some qualms about the way he interacts with those with whom he disagrees as well as some of his personal interpretations of Reformed theology. My recollection of Mr. Wilson's contributions to Omnibus is that they seemed (to this non-theologian) to be mainstream and focused on academic topics. IOW, I don't remember seeing any of his more controversial ideas in the textbook. I have not seen any of the Omnibus volumes after the first one, but I do respect Gene Veith and hope that his involvement has tempered some of the analysis.

 

 

ETA: I used a lot of Veritas Press materials for elementary and middle grades. I've always been impressed with the quality of the materials and with the content. Also, VP's theological perspective is made very clear so I'm not complaining in any way about that. Whether or to what extent VP decides to change Omnibus to make it more accessible to different groups is their call.

 

And, I've graduated a son from high school at home, in fairness to Mr. Wilson, some of his concerns about homeschooling deserve careful thought.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Martha in NM
clarify; delete an off topic remark

[simka2]

If you would like to know more about the vision of Omnibus or Veritas Press Scholaras Academy, you can contact Bruce Etter at bruce@veritaspress.com. There has been a lot of false information thrown around lately. I think he could clear some things up for you.

 

Would you be willing to clarify anything in this thread that is false? I purposely wanted to find out how connected Omnibus was to Doug Wilson. I think that answer is pretty clear, but I am definetly open to new information. :D

 

Again, I started this with some hope that VP was attempting to distance themselves from DW and his acolytes, and wanting to discover how successful they had been. At this point it looks like the rumors I had heard are not true.

 

 

I do think that people who do not follow DW beliefs can find a successful way to use Omnibus. That said, the amount of sifting needed may prove to difficult for myself.

 

Edited: I did send an email. I will update if I get a response.

Edited August 4, 2011 by simka2

[simka2]

Okay, here is Bruce Etter's response. I am very grateful that he took the time to respond. That said, I find that there is much I disagree with especially in regards to forums "with no accountability." (I find no greater accountability than the free exchange of information and ideas)

 

The Pro-slavery statements are very interesting to me. I will have to did through the other thread to see if there are direct quotes from Wilson in regards to this. I definately do not encourage misinformation being spread around. If DW is saying one thing in one location and another in Omnibus III that would be of concern.

 

I hope this is helping someone besides me :D

 

[private email deleted by Moderator]

Edited April 6, 2013 by Moderator
It's best not to cut and paste a private email into a forum without the express permission of the author

[angela in ohio]

If you read over the Omnibus curriculum you will find that it is a solid, reformed and evangelical approach, nothing more, nothing less.[/i]

 

Thank goodness! I was starting to get a bit worried with all the rumours running around!

[angela in ohio]

Ignoring the entire Wilson controversy, I do wonder about the above statement. If you qualified the statement and targeted it toward Protestant curriculum, it might be accurate. (I honestly have no idea.) However, by 1998, Designing Your Own Classical Curriculum was in its 3rd printing. Kolbe Academy was providing materials to homeschoolers in 1993. I'm not that familiar with VP and Onmibus, but aren't they "newer" generation homeschool providers/materials?

 

I don't know when Logos starting making its materials available to homeschoolers, but Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning was published in 1991.

[Hope in God]

Thank-you so much for this thread and thank-you to everyone who has been answering my questions. I am glad this has come up because it is helping me figure out my homeschooling philosophy. For some reason this coming year has me like a deer in the headlights.:eek:

 

Martha in NM, if you feel comfortable, could you tell me what concerns of Mr. Wison's deserve careful thought?

[Spy Car]

Since individuals in "the other thread" have linked to direct quotes of Douglas Wilson, videotaped interviews with Douglas Wison, official Court documents (in the case of Wilson's involvement aiding a child molester) and other (numerous) instances where Douglas Wison describes himself as a paleo-Confederate and acts as an apologist for human slavery (which he evidently believes is sanctioned by the bible) I am hard pressed to see how Wilson is being mischaracterized.

 

I wonder if the publishers of Omnibus agree with Wilson that slavery is a bibically acceptable institution? If not, it seems very strange to me that they would choose a man like Wilson (a self described paleo-Confederate) to write their section on slavery and the Slave Narratives. What could they possibly be thinking?

 

Hopefully they publicly repudiate Douglas Wisson and his pro-slavery positions. At best having a man like Douglas Wilson writing their materials on slavery shows a profoundly poor sense of judgement. Jesus wept.

 

Bill

[Tullia]

Thank-you so much for this thread and thank-you to everyone who has been answering my questions. I am glad this has come up because it is helping me figure out my homeschooling philosophy. For some reason this coming year has me like a deer in the headlights.:eek:

 

Martha in NM, if you feel comfortable, could you tell me what concerns of Mr. Wison's deserve careful thought?

 

First, don't be nervous if you're new to high school. I was truly afraid of high school, and it was a lot of work but there were many unexpected rewards. I never followed through, but told the family I wanted to print a diploma for me when ds graduated.

 

About Mr. Wilson's reservations on homeschooling. All I can offer is an answer based on my experience and reaction to some points he made because I don't have his books anymore. Generally I like to offer direct quotes and page numbers. And, btw, I didn't burn his books or throw them away--I gave them to friends who are Reformed and who use Canon Press materials.

 

I love homeschooling, and think it's a superior form of education. It's not perfect, though, and has its own set of challenges. The same can be said for public, private and cottage schools. I hs'ed an only child and some major concerns we dealt with were fostering independence, finding opportunities for outside accountability, and providing healthy competition. We found lots of opportunities to give our son a chance to become more independent and be accountable to someone other than family or close friends. It's just that we had to consciously plan for things that are often a matter of course in public or private schools. For the most part we did fairly well with a combination of friends, church, volunteer work, and co-ops.

 

My recollection of Mr. Wilson's concern is that he feels that young men need to "cut the apron strings" at some point (my interpretation--I'm not quoting him) and that they need a certain amount of interaction with peers--interaction of the sort dh and I refer to as "bumping shoulders with the guys". I don't disagree with Mr. Wilson about that, but would say that similar things apply to young women as well. I'm not sure about literal bumping of shoulders, though. ;) And, I don't recall his saying that one cannot provide what's needed in a home school, just that too often in his opinion it doesn't happen.

 

I've looked through my copy of Omnibus, and spent some time browsing through my old notes this afternoon. I didn't see anything offensive or troubling, but as I said earlier we are not Reformed so we did a lot of discussion especially in the chapter on Romans. I hope that people considering using Omnibus will base their decisions on the merits of the text itself because it's the product of hard work on the part of a lot of people.

 

Feel free to PM me if you like.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Martha in NM
clarity

[Tullia]

Okay, here is Bruce Etter's response. I am very grateful that he took the time to respond. That said, I find that there is much I disagree with especially in regards to forums "with no accountability." (I find no greater accountability than the free exchange of information and ideas)

 

The Pro-slavery statements are very interesting to me. I will have to did through the other thread to see if there are direct quotes from Wilson in regards to this. I definately do not encourage misinformation being spread around. If DW is saying one thing in one location and another in Omnibus III that would be of concern.

 

I hope this is helping someone besides me :D

 

I want to thank you for doing extra research. I agree with you about the value of free exchange of information, but I can see why the folks at VP might be dismayed by the tone of (some parts of) the discussion. I'm going to make a couple of comments which I hope don't stray too far outside the type of responses you requested for this thread. If I go too far, please say so and I'll be happy to come back and delete.

 

First, I won't pretend to agree with a lot of what Mr. Wilson has written in his magazine, his blog, or his books. I do not. However, I found nothing objectionable in his contributions to Omnibus I. I also think that it's important to judge people's words fairly, to evaluate individual remarks in context, and to keep in mind the limitations of the information available to us.

 

I have read a lot of his writing; Mr. Wilson reminds me of the Samuel Johnson portrayed in Boswell's Life of Johnson. (One of my all-time favorite books and IMO the finest biography ever written.:D) Johnson was a caring person in many ways, but he was not a saint. He was not afraid to step on toes and ever willing to follow a line of reasoning in unexpected directions. I forget if it was Boswell or Johnson himself who described his occasional tendency to rhetorical excess as "talking for effect". Johnson wasn't squeamish about analyzing unpleasant subjects; sometimes he offended people by doing so.

 

I know, too, from experience, that accounts in the news are often inaccurate either due to lack of information or lazy reporting--sometimes it's both. Search engines--even the "deep web" sort are limited. I try to avoid drawing conclusions based only on information from news sources.

[8circles]

Okay, here is Bruce Etter's response. I am very grateful that he took the time to respond. That said, I find that there is much I disagree with especially in regards to forums "with no accountability." (I find no greater accountability than the free exchange of information and ideas)

 

The Pro-slavery statements are very interesting to me. I will have to did through the other thread to see if there are direct quotes from Wilson in regards to this. I definately do not encourage misinformation being spread around. If DW is saying one thing in one location and another in Omnibus III that would be of concern.

 

I hope this is helping someone besides me :D

 

 

 

Thanks for doing this research. I find it helpful.

 

Since individuals in "the other thread" have linked to direct quotes of Douglas Wilson, videotaped interviews with Douglas Wison, official Court documents (in the case of Wilson's involvement aiding a child molester) and other (numerous) instances where Douglas Wison describes himself as a paleo-Confederate and acts as an apologist for human slavery (which he evidently believes is sanctioned by the bible) I am hard pressed to see how Wilson is being mischaracterized.

 

I wonder if the publishers of Omnibus agree with Wilson that slavery is a bibically acceptable institution? If not, it seems very strange to me that they would choose a man like Wilson (a self described paleo-Confederate) to write their section on slavery and the Slave Narratives. What could they possibly be thinking?

 

Hopefully they publicly repudiate Douglas Wisson and his pro-slavery positions. At best having a man like Douglas Wilson writing their materials on slavery shows a profoundly poor sense of judgement. Jesus wept.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:After the response Simka posted I'm just kind-of puzzled. It seems like if there are half-truths or untruths, then say what they are. To just refuse to discuss it is a cop-out IMO. Anyway, the whole "pro-slavery" thing just seems a bit too subjective to even argue as a falsehood. I've read/seen/heard DW's opinion. I think he is, among other things, pro-slavery. Of course, others could read/see/hear & have a different opinion. Seems like a sorry excuse to not even engage. I would expect anyone who could be linked to DW in any way to be more than willing to cut ties with him if they disagreed with his views. To not do so, IMO, is to accept some level of agreement.

 

Simka, Sorry if this is not in line with what you wanted. I'm willing to delete if you'd rather.

 

BTW, January is a lovely name.

[justasque]

I've been following this discussion, saw this article (while going down a totally different rabbit hole) and thought it may be of interest; it is in sharp contrast to Wilson's slavery essay and I found it interesting to compare the two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/opinion/putting-an-antebellum-myth-about-slave-families-to-rest.html?_r=2

 

I'm not a historian AT ALL, but I've found this discussion quite interesting.

[Karis]

Making bold "black & white" decisions based upon "associations"... that's an interesting thought.

 

Looking at someone's background, writings, legal documents, following their history and questioning their actions and motives... Do we really even do that anymore? Just seems so... selective.

 

And so... slippery.

 

 

I know we all have strong opinions here. We have enough info. available on this site to make informed decisions on various curriculum sources and providers.

 

If something does or doesn't work "for you" fine. Be gracious when you have facts to share or strong beliefs about it.

 

Things here can and do get pretty "prickly' very quickly.

[simka2]

Making bold "black & white" decisions based upon "associations"... that's an interesting thought.

 

Looking at someone's background, writings, legal documents, following their history and questioning their actions and motives... Do we really even do that anymore? Just seems so... selective.

 

And so... slippery.

 

 

I know we all have strong opinions here. We have enough info. available on this site to make informed decisions on various curriculum sources and providers.

 

If something does or doesn't work "for you" fine. Be gracious when you have facts to share or strong beliefs about it.

 

Things here can and do get pretty "prickly' very quickly.

 

I must be completely misreading this. What is the alternative? I would interview any teacher of my children, regardless of the medium. That includes looking into their background, beliefs, and associations. :confused:

 

I can't fathom what you are trying to say here. :confused: And honestly, I am trying to. What you have written though goes against what I believe my responsibility is as a parent.

 

It is most definately my responsibility to look into the background of writers who could influence the "thinking pathways" of my children.

 

It is not my my responsibility to be "gracious" about facts. Facts are facts. How different individuals interpret them is completely up to them, but I will not dress the up to be anything other than what they are.

 

When I started this thread I wanted to find DW level of involvment. I got my answers. Again, I hope this thread has proven beneficial to some.

[simka2]

It takes a lot to shock me. Really it does. Even when I do not like what I am hearing about a particular figure, even when the information is extremely upsetting I will take the time to go to the relevant accessible source in an attempt to ascertain the truth.

 

Because of that I took the time to email a certain person and ask some direct questions. I made it very clear that I intended to repost his response, because I wanted to give him the oppurtunity to craft a response he was comfortable with or to chose not to respond at all. Here is what I said, "Here is a link to the original thread I started. If it would not be to much trouble for you to contribute your 2cents either directly to the thread or back to me (with the understanding that I will copy it to the thread) I would really appreciate it!"

 

This morning I woke up to a scathing email. :glare: Here is my response, "Mr, *****,

I am completely shocked that you are shocked. I was very clear in my intial contact with you that that was my intent. I never mislead you. You were fully informed that I intended to share your response. I was very honest and stated up front my intentions so you could make an informed decision on how to respond. That was the point of my email. You NEVER stated not to quote you. NEVER. You are free to chose not to engage in forums, but I do. Again, I was completely upfront about my intentions.

 

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean about "while at the same time lacking the very discretion you claim he lacks". I have no idea what you are referring to. I have never made any claims about DW and for you to accuse me is wrong!

 

Many of these people on the forums I consider friends. Yes, I will share information with them.

 

Again, I do apologize for upsetting you, but I was very clear about my intentions.

 

One final note. Do not use scripture as a weapon to attempt to control me. You have no right!

 

Regards, January."

 

Let this be another lesson to me in the controlling nature of these types of groups. Also, let it be a lesson that even if you do try to be honest, go to the source and share "true" information, you will be raked across the coals, accused, and labeled. :tongue_smilie:

 

I am done! I tried, but no more.

 

Edited: I think it is important to remember what a Forum is.

fo·rum

noun /ˈfôrəm/ 

fora, plural; forums, plural

 

A place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged

- it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research

 

A court or tribunal

 

(in an ancient Roman city) A public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business

Edited August 5, 2011 by simka2

[Supertechmom]

Sorry! And he even stated in the email you shared that he felt like it would be copy and pasted. I read the post and felt like he understood you would share it. Sorry you got a raked!!!! Not a great way to treat possible customers. What scripture does this group use to justify their control over every women that they run into?? Step out of line and some random dude can "correct" you and show you your " biblical" failure??? GAG!! :grouphug:

[Ellesmere]

If you would like to know more about the vision of Omnibus or Veritas Press Scholaras Academy, you can contact Bruce Etter at bruce@veritaspress.com. There has been a lot of false information thrown around lately. I think he could clear some things up for you.

Thank you for the contact info!

 

This is a sincere and not at all argumentative question ... can you specify what is false?

 

Do you mean false info about Doug Wilson or Veritas Press?

 

(I referred directly to DW's book -- his own words, in context, where he promotes the teachings of Peter Duesberg -- the man who believes the falsehood that H*V is harmless. And I offered to change any post of mine here or there that if I mistakenly shared false information. That offer still stands if you are referring to false info on Doug Wilson.) Feel free to PM so we can keep this thread on-topic and not about our feelings about Douglas Wilson.

 

Thanks!:)

Edited August 5, 2011 by Clairelise
edited to stay more on topic

[simka2]

Sorry! And he even stated in the email you shared that he felt like it would be copy and pasted. I read the post and felt like he understood you would share it. Sorry you got a raked!!!! Not a great way to treat possible customers. What scripture does this group use to justify their control over every women that they run into?? Step out of line and some random dude can "correct" you and show you your " biblical" failure??? GAG!! :grouphug:

.

 

Well in the email he used the timeless Matt 18. :glare:

[justamouse]

.

 

Well in the email he used the timeless Matt 18. :glare:

 

I am SO sorry. You went out of your way to be objective on a hugely inflammatory subject and that's how you got treated?

 

And seriously, Matt 18?

 

Wow, who does he think he is trying to be your pastor? Just to bump over your Dh and pastor and do that to you?

 

Not that I agreed with their theology in the first place, but that put a nail in the coffin, so to speak.

[Ellesmere]

....

I know, too, from experience, that accounts in the news are often inaccurate either due to lack of information or lazy reporting--sometimes it's both. Search engines--even the "deep web" sort are limited. I try to avoid drawing conclusions based only on information from news sources.

 

Please do correct me if I'm misreading you at all.

 

I know very well how news accounts can be quite inaccurate in their portrayal of issues similar to ones cited in the Douglas Wilson thread (regarding the marriage issue, for example.) I was very close to people involved in a local church scandal and neither side was portrayed fully in the news accounts.

 

However, I've drawn my conclusions about DW (not Veritas Press) from his own writings, in his own words, in context.

 

Now I know this is not your stance, but to ignore DW's harmful teachings and not investigate his level of involvement at VP is unfathomable to me. But I completely understand people using VP materials and having no idea about DW's views. I do.

 

Are you saying people are drawing false conclusions about DW solely from news reports or out-of-context information? (Asking, not arguing -- really!)

Edited August 6, 2011 by Clairelise
Trying to fix the quoted post ...