For the next blog post I compiled a large body of quotations from Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, regarding his stated objective to “take” the cities of Moscow & Pullman. However, before we go there it’s important to disabuse readers of the notion that the words “take” or “takeover” are metaphors that refer to converting the community. This quote controls, because it was the first and only time he overtly stated his goal:
In the 60s, my father wrote a small but enormously influential book called The Principles of War. In it, he applied the principles of physical warfare to what he called strategic evangelism. This idea of warfare is necessary in order to understand a central part of what is happening here, and by this I mean the concept of the decisive point. A decisive point is one which is simultaneously strategic and feasible. Strategic means that it would be a significant loss to the enemy if taken. Feasible means that it is possible to take. New York City is strategic but not feasible. Bovill is feasible but not strategic. But small towns with major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both. (Douglas Wilson, The State of the Church 2003, December 28, 2003)
At the end of each year Douglas Wilson preaches a “State of the Church” sermon wherein he assesses the state of Christ Church, and 2003 was a disaster for the Kirk — especially when he preached this sermon. For five months, from October 2003 to February 2004, one subject occupied Mr. Wilson’s agenda: His defense of race-based slavery in the antebellum south as a biblical institution.
This was the end of Douglas Wilson’s ministry, to the extent that he ever had one. Prior to slavery, the community indulged him as an oddball. During slavery, he torched any goodwill that may have existed between him and the community, which sealed his reputation. From that point forward he bore in his body the marks of the town leper and the town fool. And since then his name has degenerated yet more: Evasion of property taxes, zoning violations, plagiarism, sex-offender advocacy, and more plagiarism to name a few reasons why. Doug Wilson worked hard to earn his reputation; no one should begrudge him the fruit of his labors. But I digress.
When Mr. Wilson preached his The State of the Church 2003 sermon in December 2003, conflict surrounded him on all sides. The Moscow-Pullman Daily News and the Lewiston Morning Tribune pounded him with front-page stories at least once a week because of his defense of slavery. The opinion pages saw several editorials and op-eds repudiating him, as well as hundreds of letters to the editor. The community at large abominated him. Over a thousand people signed a public rebuke to Doug Wilson and published it in full-page ads in the Daily News and LMT. Two historians from the University of Idaho published a searing refutation of Doug Wilson’s erroneous history and posted it to the UI website. In response, Doug Wilson threatened to sue the University of Idaho for libel & defamation. The administrations for Washington State University and the University of Idaho published separate rebukes of Mr. Wilson’s racist history on their websites. The Evangelical Church of Pullman — the mother kirk of Christ Church — publicly denounced Doug Wilson. Countless Christians wrote letters to the editor to distinguish between themselves as Bible-believing Christians and Doug Wilson. Locals organized a successful boycott of businesses owned by kirkers, such as Bucer’s. Mr. Wilson hosted a town hall meeting, hoping to end the controversy, but this failed. He fled from the local bulletin board because he could no longer account for his many inconsistent explanations. And none of this is exaggeration. To be sure, I am understating the magnitude of this scandal. Doug Wilson claimed that the Bible sanctioned raced-based chattel slavery as practiced in the antebellum south — and he stuck to this position despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, he doubled-down by ridiculing anyone who corrected or contradicted him. This sets the context for this quote:
In the 60s, my father wrote a small but enormously influential book called The Principles of War. In it, he applied the principles of physical warfare to what he called strategic evangelism. This idea of warfare is necessary in order to understand a central part of what is happening here, and by this I mean the concept of the decisive point. A decisive point is one which is simultaneously strategic and feasible. Strategic means that it would be a significant loss to the enemy if taken. Feasible means that it is possible to take. New York City is strategic but not feasible. Bovill is feasible but not strategic. But small towns with major universities (Moscow and Pullman, say) are both. (Doug Wilson, The State of the Church 2003, December 28, 2003)
Douglas Wilson was at war with the Palouse.1 Therefore, he invoked the “idea of warfare” to describe the present state of Christ Church; he defined his neighbors in Moscow & Pullman as “the enemy”; and he stated his objective in geo-political terms — he meant to inflict a “significant loss” on Moscow & Pullman. He intended to “take” them, like Braveheart sacking York.2
Doug Wilson cared about evangelizing lost souls only to the extent that he could persuade others to buy his southern history, which he shackled to the gospel. He wasn’t “taking” Moscow & Pullman for Christ. To be sure, he’s the first deride this kind of Bill Bright–Billy Graham terminology. For him, this was war, and he planned to exact retribution against his enemies. So when you see the string of quotes in the next post about “taking over,” the context is only political. It is not related to the gospel for the reasons stated above as well as this: The Bible never instructs Christians to “take” territory for Christ.
One last point to remember as you consider The State of the Church 2003 and taking Moscow for Christ: During those five months that Mr. Wilson defended race-based chattel slavery as biblical, Steven Sitler was molesting kirker children. Douglas Wilson cannot export what he does not have, and he has no gospel. No gospel for the Palouse and no gospel for the Kirk.
1 Actually, he was at war with reality and this war spilled over into a battle with the Palouse.
2 Contra the film, William Wallace never sacked York. But it fits, since Mr. Wilson’s narrative is fiction.