The Other Moscow’s Calvinist College Makes the NY Times
By Nick Gier, New West Unfiltered 10-03-07
MOSCOW'S CALVINIST COLLEGE
MAKES THE NEW YORK TIMES
By Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho (ngier@uidaho.edu)
New St. Andrews College (NSA), a Calvinist school in the heart of downtown Moscow, was founded by Douglas Wilson, a former student of mine. We only ask that our student's use their degrees responsibly, but I'm afraid that Wilson has become the notorious TV preacher with everything except the big hair and the wide screen.
Over the last 15 years, Wilson has established a religious empire that includes NSA, 200 Classical Christian K-12 schools, Canon Press in Moscow, a seminary Grey Friars, and his own denomination, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches.
NSA was just featured in The New York Times Magazine (9-30-07). The article is entitled "Onward Christian Scholars" and the author is Molly Worthen. Worthen has written an excellent and balanced analysis, and I would like to expand on some of the topics she covered.
NSA students are bright and hard working, and I once spent about 60 hours advising an NSA student on his senior thesis on Buddhism. I'm afraid, however, that some of their instructors do not meet NSA's requirement that their students have good moral character.
NSA President Roy Atwood is quoted as saying that Wilson and Co. "are not interested in political takeover," but the facts tell another story. Wilson makes much of the fact that he doesn't like Bush and is against the war in Iraq. Worthen quotes him as declaring: "They voted for Bush; I'd vote for Jefferson Davis."
Wilson repeatedly tells his critics that he is not a neo-Confederate, but the ties are just too close for him to deny it. In 1994, he and Steven Wilkins wrote a booklet entitled "Southern Slavery as It Was," in which they celebrate the Antebellum South as the greatest multiracial society in human history.
Wilkins is a conservative Presbyterian minister in Louisiana who was a founding director of the neo-Confederate League of the South (LOS). LOS president Michael Hill, who attends Wilkins' church, proposes that an independent neo- Confederacy of fifteen states would have the duty to protect the values of Anglo-Celtic culture from black Americans, who are "a compliant and deadly underclass."
I am pleased that Worthen was able to get Wilson to come clean on his relationship with R. J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement with a very explicit political agenda. Both Wilson and Rushdoony are postmillennialists, which means that Christians must first, on their own initiative, set up godly governments before Christ will come.
There will be no quick Rapture; rather, there will be a long war against non-believers, the end of which Wilson once described as a Christian tsunami crashing into pagan lawn chairs on a beach.
Central to the Reconstructed Christian state is the administration of Old Testament law. Four years after the fact, Wilson conveniently announced that he was misquoted in a local paper about allowing banishment for homosexuals rather than their execution.
Worthen's article has Wilson on the record again with this exact same administration of Old Testament law. This is just one of many examples of Wilson's duplicity and deception.
For many years I have had the mistaken impression that Wilson's father, Jim Wilson, was not responsible for his son's theological waywardness. But Worthen's article reminded me of "The Principles of War: A Handbook on Strategic Evangelism" written by Jim Wilson, the good pastor's father. Worthen also noted that NSA coffee mugs have the Latin motto, which translates as "for the faithful, wars shall never cease."
Worthen quotes Jim Wilson as being disappointed that his son undermined the opportunity of a surprise attack. Some years ago Son Wilson did follow his father's military strategy of choosing an appropriate target (Moscow was just the right size), but then foolishly publicized his battle plan.
In a debate that I had with Wilson in January, 2007, I tried to get him to clarify his position on "covenantal" lying, which allows the use of deception to advance the Gospel. Wilson responded that this was permissible only if he and his congregations were in fact at war.
We now have more than enough evidence that the war is on, and we now know the real reason for Wilson's evasiveness and deceit over the years.
Nick Gier taught religion and philosophy at the University of Idaho for 31 years. Read the full story about Wilson's religious empire at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/Wilson.htm.
Comments
By the by, does anyone else notice the Fallacy of Ambiguous Terms with the re-defining of war in the last part? You might want to actually look at the context of what Wilson is saying before you start to pull random words out.
Actually, J.Clark, in my mind the postmillenialist movement (of which Pastor Wilson is part) is a very far cry from neo-Platonism. The postmillenialist movement teaches (as this article says) that Christians have a duty to rebuild the world before Christ's return. This is closely linked to their belief that God will remake earthly human bodies into new bodies which will house their souls in heaven. This idea that even in the afterlife, after the soul has been "set free" from the earthly body, it will be receive a different-yet-same body to clothe it, sounds like Plato's worst nightmare to me.
1) The CREC is Wilson's "own" denomination in essentially the same sense that the CREC is my own denomination, and I'm just a person in the pews -- in a CREC church in Tokyo, Japan, I might add. I guess this mean's that Wilson's empire is now truly global. (There are also CREC churches in Europe, Africa, and elsewhere outside the USA.)
2) As to the racism of the League of the South, see this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1 -- here is just a quick quote: 'Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups, said "What is remarkable and really astounding about this situation is we see people and institutions who are supposedly on the progressive left rubbing shoulders with bona fide white supremacists." Sale [head of the progressive left group rubbing shoulders with the League of the South] said the League of the South "has not done or said anything racist in its 14 years of existence," and that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible. "They call everybody racists," Sale said.'
3) Contrary to Gier's distortion, Postmillennialism says that the Holy Spirit working through the power of the Gospel to transform the hearts of men is what will make manifest God's dominion (which is already a fact and not something any person needs to establish -- God does not rule because some men got together and decided to make Him King; rather, He rules, period).
4) Gier would apparently have us believe that he is a man of peace while Wilson is a man of war, but that is clearly nonsense. Both men are waging a war through words, and that is the best way that wars are to be fought. That is exactly what the Bible calls us to do -- the Book of Revelation shows Jesus with a sword coming out of His mouth, thus emphasizing the power of words. But Wilson is a man who preaches, and very clearly believes, that God will throw unrepentant liars into the Lake of Fire. To put it another way, Wilson clearlly believes in a God who is apt to punish him if he deliberately distorts the truth. Gier, on the other hand, as a Unitarian, harbors no such beliefs, and it shows in the cavalier way he is willing to distort the truth about his adversary.
To Jake Walls, 10-03-07, I would ask: what is a paleo-Confederate? From some of Wilson's meanderings, it could mean that we should have stayed with the founding fathers; franchise limited to property-owning males (confirmed by Wilson, Wilkins, and George Grant at Moscow conference in February 2004); senators still being appointed; slavery still OK; and strong support for state's rights. If that is so, neo-Confederacy vs. paleo-Confederacy is a distinction without a difference.
To kalebt, 10-03-07, I say that I've never called Wilson a Nazi. I've even accepted his declaration that he is not a racist. If Wilson & Co. do not want to be misunderstood about the meaning of war, why don't the NSA coffee mugs say "For the faithful, there will always be struggle" rather than "war," and why does the cover of Jim Wilson's book have an upheld sword on it? These guys just can't help themselves; they openly invite misunderstanding and confusion.
To standr, 10-03-07, I would simply say that an obsession with finding truth, defending the Academy, and rooting out dishonesty, deception and falsehood is the most magnificent obsession to which a human being could devote himself.
You should have been in attendance as I took the microphone for a second time during Wilson's talk on the documentary My Town at the end of January, 2007. All of a sudden, the student moderator said that he had to close the meeting, even though there were 10 more minutes left on the room reservation. In my 30 plus years of using the UI SUB, no one has ever kicked people out because of running over time. No one was offering me "good money" to stay and continue to discredit Wilson. It was clear that they wanted me to stop questioning him.
To Christopher Witmer, 10-04-07, I would like to thank him for not answering with a simple insult, but actually giving me some substance to which to respond. As it turns out, Witmer dances around the edges and fails to demonstrate any mistakes in my column.
Witmer is taking page out of Wilson's debate book on the meaning of owning something. Humble Flip Wilson always says that all he owns is a house and a Ford pick-up. Founders "own" their movements and institutions is a far more profound way that simply holding the deed to a property. Jesus founded Christianity but didn't own anything except his cloak.
Everywhere Wilson speaks he is introduced as the founder of NSA, Logos School, and 200 other classical Christian schools. The NY Times article on NSA, which Wilson praises to the hilt even though it provides damning evidence against him, describes him as the co-founder of CREC, so I'll go with that, especially since Wilson does not object to that in his blog. In a Wikipedia entry that Wilson can correct any time, it states that "Wilson was instrumental in forming the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches."
In the dispute about the CREC Christ of the King in Santa Cruz, Wilson acts as an authoritarian bishop rather than a moderator of a confederation, a type of organization that gives the most autonomy to its members. My research on CREC reveals that it operates as a refuge for scoundrels such as the defrocked R. C. Sproul, Jr. and fathers of renegade sons who would have been disfellowshipped permanently under the strict discipline of other evangelical congregations.
With regard to the Southern Poverty Law Center, I will say just two things: (1) they don't call everyone racists; and (2) the people of Idaho will be forever grateful for their successful suit they brought against the Aryan Nations, one of the greatest embarrassments that the good people of Idaho have ever endured. With neo-Confederates in Moscow, we are now faced with yet another embarrassment from the Loony Right.
Finally, to the alleged equivocation about war, I would first repeat the points above. Wilson and Co. could save themselves a lot of grief by toning down their rhetoric and not throwing out terms and phrases that provoke and cause confusion and misunderstanding.
Unlike Wilson, I don't follow the principles of war; rather, I follow the principles of civil debate, which do not tolerate deception, surprise attack, and destruction of the enemy, all allowed under the rules of war. Wilson's critics, among them good conservative evangelicals, have provided sufficient evidence for his "distortions of the truth," so it is he who should be shaking in fear of fires of Hell.
I will trust my conscience and the peer review of my colleagues to prevent me from distorting the truth. My God is, as John Fowles once said so aptly, not "omniscient and decreeing; but in the new theological image, with freedom our first principle, not authority. . . . There is only one good definition of God: one freedom that allows other freedoms to exist."
My apologies for any name-calling, it was certainly not my intent to be at all slanderous. I meant my observation more generally than specifically to your comments here.
As to your comment about war, I'd say that your comments reveal the difference here. In Christian theology, particularly the type that Wilson and the CREC believe in, history is a struggle between those who do not believe in Christ and those who do. That struggle is one without weapons (at least when it is done rightly) and yet is for a far greater prize than any earthly war: for the souls of all mankind. Because of this we call it a war, though it is not fought with weapons on battlefields but instead with words in hearts and souls.
As an atheist, I thank you for your endeavors to illuminate those that would corrupt Christianity to their own ends. Please forgive me my total self-imposed ignorance of all things religious/spiritual. To me, it would be the same as studying water divination or other superstitions. Having admitted this, I also realize that I and my fellow lack of belief-ers are in the nearly invisible minority. Having no immediate info about your beliefs, I will assume that you believe that the separation of church and state to be appropriate. I am heartened to see people of faith (talk2action linked me here.) willing to debate and, yes, battle against those that would impose their visions of Godliness upon the world. Thank you for your hard work.
The problem with what you are saying is that it defeats itself. You ask that no "visions of Godliness" be "imposed" on the world. Yet, if you think about it, isn't your idea of Godliness (that is, there isn't a God and therefore no need for Godliness) a vision in itself? If I don't like steak, does that mean that I have no view on steak? Of course this analogy is weak in several areas but I hope you see my point. Your belief that there is no God is just as much a belief about God as my belief is. And so, in the end, you telling me not to "impose my vision of Godliness upon the world" is really you imposing your vision of God onto me.