Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a letter to the editor in response to Steve Wells’ letter. Steve had Doug Wilson’s number 15 years ago and he still has it today:

*   *   *

On ending slavery

Steve Wells responded to my column (His View, May 3) in the newspaper by citing some quotations from me, as though those quotations were inconsistent with what I said in my article. He wants to represent me as a returned prodigal who is dishonest enough to pretend that he had never run off in the first place. But I stand by what I wrote in my piece on May 3, and I stand by the inflammatory quotations that Mr. Wells cited. Not only so, but I could probably find some additional provocative quotes to stand by, if requested.

Connecting all these various quotations is a curious practice that our ancestors used to call “presenting an argument.” Since Mr. Wells made no allusion to the existence of such an argument in his attempt to represent me as disingenuous, let me put the argument in a nutshell here.

In every country but ours, slavery was ended in the West without a war. We managed to kill 600,000 people in our war. In contrast, the biblical approach to overthrowing pagan forms of slavery is by means of peaceful subversion — teaching believing slaves and masters alike how to behave in such a way as to make the continuation of the institution of slavery untenable. The New Testament is crammed with instructions on this. Had we been willing to do this — subverting the system without reviling the people who are engaged in subverting the system — we would not have done it the way that secularists apparently love to applaud, that is to say, via unnecessary carnage. Whether one agrees with my argument or not, my argument does exist, and what actually is disingenuous is the practice of pretending that it doesn’t.

Douglas Wilson
Moscow

*   *   *

Here are three questions for lurking kirkers: In 1996 Douglas Wilson wrote that the American Civil War (which he calls the War Between the States) was not about slavery:

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)

But today he contends that the American Civil War was about slavery (see the letter to the editor above). Kirkers, please answer these three questions:

1. If the “War Between the States” “was over the biblical meaning of constitutional government” and not about slavery, then why does he now maintain that “In every country but ours, slavery was ended in the West without a war. We managed to kill 600,000 people in our war”?

2. If the “War Between the States” was fought to end slavery, as he now contends, then why does he brag that he would have fought for the South?
   

   “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)

3. Where in the Bible does the writer instruct slaves and slaveholders to “subvert the system” as Mr. Wilson claims? Please show me one verse.