We have two letters to the editor today. A kirker wrote the first one (you can tell by the gloating, the typos, and the fallacious argument), which is good because it helps illustrate an important point. The letter writer (Seth Bloomsburg) contradicts himself by asserting that “we live in a theocracy right now . . . . Christ reigns over all things here and now,” and simultaneously affirming by implication that Christ will not reign “here and now” until the Kirk succeeds in its “Christian takeover.” The final taunt, “Is the Daily News simply worried that we will succeed?” closes the deal. If Christ reigns as Mr. Bloomsburg claims, then no successful takeover is necessary. However, if the Kirk must “takeover” the Palouse to install Christ as king, then he does not reign “here and now,” contra Seth Bloomsburg. Thus Doug Wilson’s stated goal of taking Moscow & Pullman. He wants political control, not spiritual:
* * *
We live in a theocracy
In an April 29 Our View, Lee Rozen wrote for the Daily News editorial board, “Whether braggadocio or not, the specter of theocracy on the Palouse bears resistance.”
What Rozen fails to understand is that whether anyone likes it or not, we live in a theocracy right now, at this very moment.
Jesus was crowned king of kings and Lord of lords. Matthew 28:18 records Jesus saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. . .”
“All authority” includes every court and legal process in Latah county. Jesus specifically says “All authority . . . on earth.” So Christ reigns over all things here and now from heaven. Should a “Christian takeover” worry anyone? Not a bit.
The apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that, “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ.”
We do not wage our warfare with physical weapons against flesh. What we do is take every thought captive to Christ and persuade others to do that as well, by showing them that by denying God you become vain in your reasonings, Romans 1:21.
We take captive every thought, including every thought concerning economics, music and education and make it obedient to Christ; and we do this by the persuasion of the gospel. Shouldn’t our religious perspective be tolerated? Shouldn’t we not be discriminated against? Should a newspaper really be calling for active resistance of a particular religion? Having explained that all things are under his authority, Jesus said we should “make disciples of all nations.” Is the Daily News simply worried that we will succeed?
Seth Bloomsburg
Moscow
* * *
Steve Wells wrote today’s second letter to the editor, which is also good. Very early in Douglas Wilson’s slavery debacle, Steve Wells identified numerous contradictions between Doug Wilson’s original teaching on slavery and his revised teaching on slavery, and he put them side by side for everyone to see. Douglas Wilson, who advertises himself as “one of today’s leading defenders of the Christian faith,” refused to admit any contradiction or that he revised his position, so Steve Wells kept the inconsistencies on the table. Mr. Wilson left the forum and launched Mablog.
One quick correction: the article cited by Mr. Wells in the letter below was written in 1992, not 2005; and I inserted the hyperlink:
Doug Wilson and slavery
It’s great to hear Doug Wilson (His View, May 3) assure us (once again) that he no longer approves of slavery; that he no longer wants to impose biblical law, including Leviticus 20:13, throughout the Palouse; and that his desired “takeover” of Moscow and Pullman is spiritual rather than actual.
It’s a bit disconcerting, however, to hear him say that he has “never been pro-slavery” since he has written two booklets and many articles defending a Christian’s right to own slaves.
Here, for example, is what he said in 2005 in a Credenda Agenda blog article entitled “So Why Are We Writing About This?”
“[N]othing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves. . . .
“The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented here is that we have said (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner. . . .
“Slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and 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?”
So which Doug Wilson should we believe? The one who talked (out loud) about the “wonderful issue” of slavery and defended a Christian’s right to own slaves, or the one who agrees with “our humanistic and democratic culture” that slavery is “a monstrous evil”?
If Doug Wilson has changed his mind on slavery, that’s great. Let’s welcome him as our newest convert to our humanistic and democratic culture.
Let’s say, Welcome home, Doug.
Steve Wells
Moscow
* * *
Here are some of Steve Wells’ contributions to the community bulletin board from the time of Douglas Wilson’s slavery scandal, as well as two of his letters to the editor:
- Slavery, Homosexuality, and Biblical Punishments
- Re: Way to go, Daily News!
- Slavery is evil, but it’s OK to own slaves
- “Slavery is evil” — Doug Wilson?
- Letter to the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, November 28, 2003
- Letter to the Lewiston Morning Tribune, December 3, 2003
Kudos to Steve Wells for a continuing job well done. Regarding Mr. Bloomsburg’s completely predictable attempt at defending “Pastor” Wilson, he trots out with the standard “Shouldn’t our religious perspective be tolerated? Shouldn’t we not be discriminated against?” argument. What Mr. Bloomsburg apparently fails to realize is that we who object (strenuously) to “Pastor” Wilson object specifically and solely to that faux “Pastor” and only him. When it comes to accusations of “discrimination”, for example, do we who object to “Pastor” Wilson, not have every right to refuse to see any of our money being tithed back to the good “Pastor”? Yes, we do. And, if by “discriminating”, that should mean not (knowingly) spending money at a Kirker business that will turn around and give money that came from our wallets and purses to “Pastor” Wilson, do we not have the perfect right to refuse giving money to Moscow’s would be “Boss Tweed”, Doug Wilson? We do have that right (perhaps a responsibility) to do so, do we not, Mr. Bloomsburg? And certainly you could argue, and I would grant you would be correct in doing so, that that is a knife that cuts both ways. Granted. Simply speaking for myself, Mr. Bloomsburg, I choose to “discriminate” against Doug Wilson by doing my best to see that he receives not a penny from me. Fair?
I take umbrage to Seth’s words: Should a newspaper really be calling for active resistance of a particular religion?. Perhaps in Bloomsburg’s worldview, Wilson, et al, is the entirety of the Christian faith, or perhaps in his worldview the Daily News were calling for the “active resistance” of Christianity as a whole, i.e., worldwide in all its expressions.
The words of the famous philosopher, “Unknown”, come to mind here: Never confuse education with intelligence.