Doug Wilson's pamphlet on slavery criticized

Status
Not open for further replies.

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Doug Wilson\'s pamphlet on slavery criticized

For Wilson's side of the story, check his Blog @ http://www.dougwils.com/

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1913619p-8258411c.html

School defends slavery booklet

By T. KEUNG HUI, Staff Writer


Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."
Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.

"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said.

The booklet isn't the only connection its two co-authors have with the school.

One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson's Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school's graduation in May.

Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson's Idaho church.

The booklet's other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group.

"Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement," said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report.

Potok said people who argue that the South should secede again have latched onto the writings of Wilson and Wilkins, which portray the Confederacy as the last true Christian civilization.

At a time when a number of Triangle Christian schools have lost enrollment and even closed, Cary Christian has seen rapid growth since it opened in 1996.

The school has 623 students in kindergarten through 12th grade. With a relatively low tuition -- up to $5,000 -- it has attracted families from 55 churches. At least one parent must be a regular attendee of a church.

Classical education

Stephenson said the school's growth is based on parental desire for a classical education founded on the basics of phonics, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Students read many classics, such as the writings of Plato and Socrates.

"As a classical Christian school, we think it's important for our students to be able to think and not be slanted to a particular position," Stephenson said. "We want them to think for themselves."

Until two years ago, Stephenson said, middle school students also had read excerpts from "Southern Slavery." He said the booklet was a counterpoint to "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which he said portrayed all Southern whites as treating their slaves badly.

Once the Civil War was no longer taught in middle school, Stephenson said, Cary Christian stopped using the booklet in those grades.

But the 43-page booklet is still read in its entirety by ninth-graders when they study the Civil War. Stephenson said the booklet can help students formulate arguments when taking the pro-Southern side in debates.

"A student may be assigned an opinion they may not agree with, so they will understand both sides," Stephenson said.

Angela Kennedy, whose daughters have attended Cary Christian since 1996, said all the booklet does is help students learn about both sides so that they have a basis to form their own opinions. She pointed out that the students also read Abraham Lincoln's speeches.

"They really do get both sides of the story," Kennedy said. "In public schools, all they get is one side of the story. That's not education. That's indoctrination."

Stephenson said the booklet is discussed for two days. Even as they read the booklet, he said, students are told slavery was wrong.

"Slavery is wrong," Stephenson said. "That's not debatable about slavery. The South was wrong about the slave trade."

Parent's support

Marcus Ranch, who has three daughters at Cary Christian, said he has no problem with the school using the booklet. He said it offers an accurate portrayal that is overlooked of how many slaves were treated kindly by their owners.

"That book is fine," Ranch said. "It does a good job with that particular perspective."

But Potok questioned how the school can use a booklet that asserts that slavery "was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence."

"What these men have written is an apology for slavery," he said. "They're putting window dressing on an abhorrent institution."

Potok also blasted the booklet, which was published in 1996, for plagiarizing a previous work. The booklet has received criticism from a number of historians.

Wilson declined to comment and referred questions to his assistant, Mike Lawyer. Lawyer said the booklet has been pulled from publication because of faulty footnotes and citation errors.

Lawyer said he thinks few schools use the booklet, which is published by a company owned by Wilson's Idaho church.

But Lawyer said the authors stand by their central belief that the Civil War didn't have to happen and that slavery would have ended on its own.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center is just trying to make money out of this," Lawyer said. "The Southern Poverty Law Center is totally off base to think in any way that the book is neo-Confederate."

But the use of the booklet is leaving some area pastors concerned that it could promote intolerance.

"If there's any attempt to divide us, it's totally un-Christian," said Richard Dial, pastor of Cary Church of God.

Mike Woods, administrator of Wake Christian Academy, said he couldn't see his school using "Southern Slavery, As it Was," especially with younger students.

"It's so easy for some of them to take something they read and assume you're in favor of it," he said.

Staff writer T. Keung Hui can be reached at 829-4534 or [email protected].

{Title edited for clarity}

[Edited on 12/11/2004 by fredtgreco]
 
Well I for one am glad that people like Wilson and Wilkins are trying to broaden the perspective on the Civil War. From what I've read from them on this topic they have been fair to the controversial issue of slavery, on the other hand I feel that the southern pride in Wilkins' writings may tend towards an unecessary extremity.
 
I think that they, like any pastors, are PRIMARILY ministers of the Gospel. As such, wouldn't it be better not to get involved in such controversial issues so ripe with seeds of division and anger and hatred. They may be doing it in the name of "education" and "presenting a fair portrayal," but when all is said and done they are Christian leaders who are both popular and influencial. Their message, however secular ("this isn't a church matter, just our 'educational' side"), is going to be inextricably tied with their Gospel.

Why burden yourself with having to prove your point in such an obsure area as this? Why uneccessarily divide your hearers over a matter that is not Christ? He is divisive enough.

I think ministers such as these need to use every measure of restraint to avoid getting embroiled in these types of issues. We've got a hard enough message for the public to accept without having to convince people that this too, is acceptable.
(the reading of the book, not slavery itself; I understand that that's not their point.)

So what if the kids education hasn't "left any stone unturned" and now they might not be able to "argue as successfully against a point they might not otherwise agree with."? Big, darn deal!
Let's turn away from every hinderance to our message.
 
I don't know who on this board has read this booklet, but I have. I would not call it a fair representation of slavery in the South, though it does bring up some interesting points. It tends to rationalize the owning of slaves. It follows the logic of R.L. Dabney's book "A Defense of Virginia and the South", which is also a rationalization of Southern slavery. Anyway you cut it, man stealing is not biblical despite the fact that some slaves were well treated. All in all, there is no biblical defence for Southern slavery.

This book is actually an attempt to put a happy face on the ante-bellum South and show that the South was not that bad (it trys to counter "Yankee" propaganda) and was the last of the true Christian and Calvinistic cultures, which Wilkins would like us to return to as his model for the future Theonomic Nirvana.
 
Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I think that they, like any pastors, are PRIMARILY ministers of the Gospel. As such, wouldn't it be better not to get involved in such controversial issues so ripe with seeds of division and anger and hatred. They may be doing it in the name of "education" and "presenting a fair portrayal," but when all is said and done they are Christian leaders who are both popular and influencial. Their message, however secular ("this isn't a church matter, just our 'educational' side"), is going to be inextricably tied with their Gospel.

Why burden yourself with having to prove your point in such an obsure area as this? Why uneccessarily divide your hearers over a matter that is not Christ? He is divisive enough.

I think ministers such as these need to use every measure of restraint to avoid getting embroiled in these types of issues. We've got a hard enough message for the public to accept without having to convince people that this too, is acceptable.
(the reading of the book, not slavery itself; I understand that that's not their point.)

So what if the kids education hasn't "left any stone unturned" and now they might not be able to "argue as successfully against a point they might not otherwise agree with."? Big, darn deal!
Let's turn away from every hinderance to our message.

Christopher,

This is an excellent point. Why throw up unnecessary barriers to the gospel? There are so many areas of the South to defend (State's rights, etc) that such a hot button issue as slavery is unneeded trouble.

In any event, even if we were to try and go back to some kind of "purer" past age, there are many others that would be superior to the antebellum South.
 
I haven't read Wilson's booklet, but I'll add to my future reading list. There are many things that Wilson and Wilkins can be rightfully criticized for, but if the point of their booklet is to follow Dabney's thinking on the subject then I am grateful for that. Yes, the gospel ought to be the primary focus of ministers, but can they not express opinions and speak to the Lordship of Christ over cultural matters as well? Being Southern myself and a Dabney fan, I am aware of the knee-jerk reactions by many to any defense of the antebellum South, but I don't think Southern Calvinistic apologists ought to make any apologies for that.
 
I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.
 
Where is the wisdom? I do know that not all slaves wanted to ride the rails of the underground railroad. I have read comments from others that wish the war hadn't happened because it ruined their lives. Yes, there were abuses but the focus for the school is in the wrong place. You could teach a lot about Government from the civil war. Why would a Christian School or Pastor put themself in the way of anyone who wants to poke holes in what they are doing. They were asking for this fight.:banghead:

There is a good Banner of Truth book called 'Preachers with Power' that shows that Slave owners and slaves were usually very familial. It also shows who was teaching and preaching to the colored folk. It wasn't the North.

[Edited on 12-10-2004 by puritancovenanter]
 
Originally posted by FrozenChosen
I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.

Should Calvin have only written about theological matters and not cultural issues?
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by FrozenChosen
I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.

Should Calvin have only written about theological matters and not cultural issues?

Kuyper REALLY wasted his time then with the Free University and the newspapers, and ...and...and....

If Christ isn't Lord over all, what type of Lord is he? I'm afraid we are stuck in the whole sacred/secular dichotomy. The gospel should transform culture - not retreat from it.

Ministers shouldn't speak out against the modern day holocaust of abortion?
 
I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with Wilson and Wilkins writing this book, but there is more going on here than a simple book about slavery. It is one piece of a larger puzzle as they attempt to reconstruct a view of the antebellum South as an example of what a Christian nation should be. With that in mind you would have to deal with the negative conotations associated with slavery.
 
Originally posted by crhoades
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by FrozenChosen
I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.

Should Calvin have only written about theological matters and not cultural issues?

Kuyper REALLY wasted his time then with the Free University and the newspapers, and ...and...and....

If Christ isn't Lord over all, what type of Lord is he? I'm afraid we are stuck in the whole sacred/secular dichotomy. The gospel should transform culture - not retreat from it.

Ministers shouldn't speak out against the modern day holocaust of abortion?

Exactly! Men like Calvin, Knox, Beza, Luther, Rutherford, Gillespie, Dabney and Kuyper knew what the priority was -- the gospel -- but they did not confine their message only to salvation. The Lordship of Christ is indeed over all areas of life, including culture. We need godly men to speak to these issues and Wilson -- if he is to be commended for anything -- should be commended for this above all.
 
Originally posted by FrozenChosen
I think such topics should be left to the study of professors and historians who are responsible for such research. This goes along with what Christopher said.


Yes, Theology is the Queen of Sciences for a reason. Perhaps Wilson/Wilkins ought not to promote it that much, but the LAST PEOPLE ON EARTH you want writing about the Old South are your typical, university professors who are pretending to be objective, yet dancing to the strings of the Spirit of the Age. Read volume 4 of Dabney's Discussions and see how much space is given to refuting his arguments. Like, if you can't refute them, just call them backwater-racists.
Daniel, I am not griping at you, but even fervent Christians I know who see my book shelf ask me why I support racism. Can anyone see the big picture? If we let the humanists rewrite non-church history, should we then give them free reign in other areas?
 
Originally posted by wsw201
I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with Wilson and Wilkins writing this book, but there is more going on here than a simple book about slavery. It is one piece of a larger puzzle as they attempt to reconstruct a view of the antebellum South as an example of what a Christian nation should be. With that in mind you would have to deal with the negative conotations associated with slavery.

The antebellum South wasn't a Nirvana and God's judgment certainly came upon her in a powerful way in 1865 and beyond. The South had the opportunity to confess Jesus Christ as King over the Confederacy (as Thornwell wanted) but failed to do so. But compared to the godless, Unitarian, Jacobin (to use Dabney's word) North, the antebellum South had replaced 17th century Massachusetts as the home of Biblical culture in America. Think Dabney, Thornwell, Girardeau, Palmer -- these men in the Southern Presbyterian Church were giants in Christian Church history. They represent the best of the South and, frankly, on the Northern side, during that time period, there is little comparison. They defended Southern culture while calling it to repentance in areas that were warranted. Jackson and Lee too did not find it irreconcilable to fight for liberty on the side of the South. Man-stealing is indeed a sin, but who engaged in it? African warlords and Yankee traders, primarily. Was the South guiltless? No. But...slavery is not instrinsically sinful and many positive examples of the master-slave relationship existed in the South. "Uncle Tom" needs a truthful counterpoint. Did slavery as an institution in the South need reform? Yes. Would to God in fact that it had died a natural death! Would to God that the South had jettisoned every hindrance to Reformation! But, comparatively, the South during that age was far and away more Biblical as a culture than anything else around and light-years ahead of where we are today in American history. I pray the South will rise again -- not to return to slavery and not to uphold Southern virtues apart from spiritual Reformation, but as Winthrop wrote of his desire to see New England made like unto "a city set upon a hill" so that God would dwell among them and his light shine forth to other nations, so likewise do I desire that for the South -- and for America.
 
I think this is just another piece of evidence that Wilson loves controversy. This isn't about what's "out of bounds" for pastors to write about...the man lives for this stuff.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
How many slave ships sailed under the American Flag?

How many slave ships sailed under the Confederate Flag? None.

Yes, the North was full of sinners, and paid for their sin in many ways.

But last time I looked, the Bible did not excuse someone who just profitted or gained from another's sin. So even if we assume that ALL slave ships were run by Northerners and Southerners were NEVER involved, they were still guilty of man-stealing, since they knew what was happening, and they provided the market for such.

And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.

How many here would want their children to be slaves?
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.

Stonewall Jackson defied Virginia civil law which prohibited the gathering of slaves for the purpose of learning how to read. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html

The fact that Virginia had such a law was probably born out of fear on the part of those who had experienced violence at the hands of men like Nat Turner, but it does not excuse such a law. Any law that keeps the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity no matter what their skin color or ethnicity is an unjust law.
 
The Southern Povery Law center is the most vicious race-site on the web. They make Neo-Nazis look like scholars in matters of objectivity. All you republicans out there: to them you are white-biogt-race mongers because you are against abortion, affirmative action, and homosexuality. Don't get me wrong, they hate the CP as well. Put it this way, if Dee Morris says something evil about Wilson, Wilkins, John Thomas Cripps, I know those men must be doing something right.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Here's what I think of this article: :barfy:

Yikes...I didn't know that I was that much of an extremist. I didn't know I read books that is considered hate speech. So much for freedom of speech or thought. All opposing view points (read reformed Christian or even libertarian for that matter - won't even mention national confessionalism or theonomic...) have been tossed down the memory hole. I guess all of it is now considered double-plus un-good according to the Ministry of Truth.

"War is Peace"
"War is Peace"
"War is Peace"

"Freedom is Slavery"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Freedom is Slavery"

"Ignorance is Strength"
"Ignorance is Strength"
"Ignorance is Strength"

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
You just can´t make the practice of man-stealing acceptable under any circumstances. It is a sin and should not be defended by anyone. The duty of the Christian in that era was to see that seek immediate end to practice, to see that that the perpetrators were punished and the victims restored. Furthermore the Christian slave owner after repenting for his participation in an enterprise that violated God´s law owed his slaves a fair and just wage for their past labors.

If you knowingly buy a stolen car radio you're just as guilty as the punk who ripped it out the dashboard and it does not matter that you think your car is better location for the radio or that it will receive so much better care in your car then it would have in the original owners car.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.

Stonewall Jackson defied Virginia civil law which prohibited the gathering of slaves for the purpose of learning how to read. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html

The fact that Virginia had such a law was probably born out of fear on the part of those who had experienced violence at the hands of men like Nat Turner, but it does not excuse such a law. Any law that keeps the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity no matter what their skin color or ethnicity is an unjust law.

Agreed, and Jackson was a good man for it. But fear never justifies sin. The Bible is crystal clear on that.
 
Originally posted by AdamM
You just can´t make the practice of man-stealing acceptable under any circumstances. It is a sin and should not be defended by anyone. The duty of the Christian in that era was to see that seek immediate end to practice, to see that that the perpetrators were punished and the victims restored. Furthermore the Christian slave owner after repenting for his participation in an enterprise that violated God´s law owed his slaves a fair and just wage for their past labors.

If you knowingly buy a stolen car radio you're just as guilty as the punk who ripped it out the dashboard and it does not matter that you think your car is better location for the radio or that it will receive so much better care in your car then it would have in the original owners car.

I don't know anyone who is defending man-stealing. A question for you: was slavery in the Bible sinful? Did Paul err in telling Onesimus to return to his master Philemon?

Here is a statement by Steve Wilkins with which I agree:


On the issue of slavery, I want to be very clear on what I understand to be the teaching of the Bible. Any race-based system of slavery is an abomination and cannot be defended by anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Man-stealing is also a grievous sin and is clearly forbidden in God's Word, but owning slaves and following the restrictions of the Word of God in the treatment of them, is not a sin. A Christian view of slavery requires the master to educate, evangelize, and edify all slaves under his authority "” so as to prepare them to live responsible and faithful lives under God. The South did not consistently follow the Biblical requirements which governed slavery and for this and other sins justly suffered the judgment of God in the war and afterwards.

The North, ignoring its own role in the establishment of slavery through the slave trade, and rife with the racism that tragically characterized the majority of Americans in the 19th century, was also judged by God in this war. The radicals in the North were driven not so much by a concern for the slave as they were by a lust for power and a desire to transform the country from a constitutional republic into a unitary State ruled by an all-powerful, centralized government. It was not necessary to fight a war in order to end slavery. But war was a convenient tool by which the radicals could put their revolutionary ideas in place. Slavery, therefore, was merely the pretext to justify the destruction of the old constitutional order of our union. By means of the war, political sovereignty was wrested from the States and placed exclusively in the hands of the Federal government. The central government, which was originally created to be the servant of the states, became their master. In this way, the war was the means by which God judged both the North and the South.

We can all rejoice over the demise of slavery in this country. But the war of 1861 resulted only in the formal abolition of the institution. The enduring legacy of that war is not the abolition of slavery, but the creation of an unconstitutional, unrestrained, leviathan-like central government which has effectively destroyed our liberties and enslaved us all.

Source: http://reformed-theology.org/southern/slavery.htm

[Edited on 10-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by fredtgreco
And while men like Girardeau should be admired and held up as great examples of the true diversification that the gospel brings (and not the liberal shlock), it should shame the South that slaves were not permitted to read (a fact which I believe Dabney laments, since they could not read their Bibles), and that the God given institution of marriage was marred.

Stonewall Jackson defied Virginia civil law which prohibited the gathering of slaves for the purpose of learning how to read. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/williams1.html

The fact that Virginia had such a law was probably born out of fear on the part of those who had experienced violence at the hands of men like Nat Turner, but it does not excuse such a law. Any law that keeps the Scriptures out of the hands of the laity no matter what their skin color or ethnicity is an unjust law.

Agreed, and Jackson was a good man for it. But fear never justifies sin. The Bible is crystal clear on that.

Agreed. :handshake:
 
A question for you: was slavery in the Bible sinful? Did Paul err in telling Philemon to return to his master?

You are making the assumption that Onesimus was the victim of man-stealing, which I don't think is warranted. The bible clearly forbids man-stealing and man-stealing was how the slaves were attained (they didn't volunteer for a pleasure cruise across the ocean.)

Is it ever ok for a Christian to make use of property they know was gotten by means that violate God's law?

Is it ever ok for a Christian to participate in a sinful enterprise even though it may not be illegal in a particular society at that time? Example, can a Christain today work as an accountant for an abortion provider?

Does a Christain have an obligation to pay his workers a fair wage for services rendered in the present and past?





[Edited on 10-12-2004 by AdamM]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top