On Saturday, April 29, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News published an editorial that included this comment about Mr. Douglas Wilson of Christ Church:

“While Pastor Wilson seems proud of his anti-gay, pro-slavery, patriarchal provocateur status, his individual parishioners go out of their way to politely fly below the radar.”

Doug Wilson wrote a response to the News’ editorial, which they published this morning; in it he wrote,

“First, I have never been pro-slavery. That is simply false. The debates I have been in on that subject revolved around the best way to eliminate slavery without massive bloodshed.”

In these three sentences Mr. Wilson performed another triple-axle flip-flop to rewrite history that would otherwise require him to admit error.

In 1996 Douglas Wilson co-wrote, edited, and self-published the booklet Southern Slavery As It Was, which included this pro-slavery argument:

The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented in this booklet is that we will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. But this “inflammatory” position is the very point upon which the Bible speaks most directly, again and again. In other words, more people will struggle with what we are saying at the point where the Bible speaks most clearly. There is no exegetical vagueness here. Not only is the Bible not politically correct, it was not politically correct one hundred thirty years ago.

This points to the need for Christians to learn the biblical way of avoiding “problem texts.” This is the way of a priori submission. Christians must recognize that they are under the authority of God, and they may not develop their ideas of what is “right” and “fair” apart from the Word of God. And when the Bible is our only standard of right and wrong, problem texts disappear. This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. 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. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

The authors “clearly” defended the practice of slaveholding because they believed the Scriptures teach this doctrine. That is, the authors were “pro-slavery” because they believed the Bible required this of them. However, this morning Douglas Wilson denied he has ever been pro-slavery, stating, “I have never been pro-slavery. That is simply false.” So in 1996 Douglas Wilson advanced pro-slavery arguments, but this morning he denied he has ever been pro-slavery. Obviously, both statements cannot be true: “Whom do you believe?”

Doug Wilson also claimed this in his op-ed: “The debates I have been in on that subject revolved around the best way to eliminate slavery without massive bloodshed.” Presumably the words “massive bloodshed” refer to the American Civil War, though Douglas Wilson does not state this. Regardless, this assertion is also false, if we believe Mr. Wilson’s teaching in Southern Slavery As It Was:

In a certain sense, we are backing into an informed discussion of the War Between the States. You have been told many times that the war was over slavery, but in reality it was over the biblical meaning of constitutional government. The inflammatory issue is slavery, however, and so the real issue is obscured in the minds of many. (Douglas Wilson & Steven Wilkins, Southern Slavery As It Was [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996], emphasis original)

This paragraph denies that the American Civil War was fought over slavery. However, it also contradicts this morning’s statement where Mr. Wilson claimed, “The debates I have been in on that subject revolved around the best way to eliminate slavery without massive bloodshed.” Because if the American Civil War was not about slavery, as Mr. Wilson argued in Southern Slavery As It Was, then slavery was not eliminated with “massive bloodshed.” Again, both statements cannot be true. “Whom do you believe?”

In 2003 Mr. Wilson doubled down on Southern Slavery As It Was:

Bill says I have been stepping away from my little booklet. Here comes the level of debate to which we are all acccustomed [sic]. Have not.

When this fracas broke out, I went back and read it again, and still agree with everything in it. We still publish it, still sell it. Backing away? Explaining something to someone who does not really want to understand it is not the same thing as backing away. But the subject head is not about my views on slavery, but rather about journalistic integrity. (Moscow Vision 2020)

He “agree[d] with everything in it,” and by definition the word “everything” includes his pro-slavery arguments, such as this line,

“The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?”

And by definition the word “everything” includes his denial that slavery caused the Civil War:

“You have been told many times that the war was over slavery, but in reality it was over the biblical meaning of constitutional government. The inflammatory issue is slavery. . .”

These denials raise an interesting question. If Doug Wilson has “never been pro-slavery,” as he wrote this morning; and if Doug Wilson believes that the American Civil War was fought “to eliminate slavery,” which he claimed this morning; and if Doug Wilson’s concerns have been “around the best way to eliminate slavery without massive bloodshed” as he claimed this morning; then why would he would have fought for the Confederacy?

Consider these statements:

“Had I been alive then, I would have fought for the South.” (Blog & Mablog, December 11, 2004)

“The South was right on the constitutional issues surrounding that war and, had I been back there with my current convictions, I would have fought for the South. . . . This stand on slavery has been taken because I am a biblical absolutist. That is the issue, and that is the only issue.” (Blog & Mablog April 29, 2005)

I do understand how some people would just stop listening when I say something like “I would have fought for the South,” and dismiss everything after that as just so much gas. I thank Thabiti for not doing that, and for the opportunity to explain what I consider as important in this kind of circumstance. (Blog & Mablog, March 20, 2013)

Was not the Confederacy pro-slavery? Did not the Confederacy shed Union blood to keep their slaves in bonds? “Whom do you believe?”