The Principles of War and Moscow’s Christ Church
Commentary By Nick Gier | FāVS News
I got to know Jim Wilson several years before his son Doug, pastor of Moscow’s Christ Church, showed up in my philosophy classes in the late 1970s. Jim and I developed a friendship that centered around lively discussions about the Bible. I regret that I was not able to convince him that Isaiah’s Suffering Servant was not Jesus.
Sometime in the 1960s, Jim Wilson wrote a small book entitled “The Principles of War: A Handbook on Strategic Evangelism.” He writes, “Not all warfare is waged on a battlefield: every Christian is called to be a soldier.” With Christ as commander-in-chief, Christians will wage battle with Satan, who is the major obstacle that evangelists face in converting unbelievers.
Some years ago, I had lunch with Jim and I asked him about the picture on the cover of his book. It was a Christian Crusader icon with an upraised sword. When I asked him if he regretted choosing such a provocative and militant image, he brushed the suggestion aside. I told him that the picture instilled fear not Christian love.
Concerns Over Christ Church’s Vision for Moscow
Doug Wilson succinctly explains this military model for evangelism, “New York City is strategic but not feasible. Bovill is feasible but not strategic. But small towns (such as) Moscow and Pullman with universities are both.” Jim Wilson targeted Moscow and moved his young family to our fair city.
Greg Dickison once wrote about biblical government in the Christ Church journal “Credenda/Agenda” (vol. 3). After assuming that “we could have it our way,” Dickison proposes a theocratic state that would require capital punishment for murder, kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one’s parents.” Is this what their motto “All of Christ for All of Moscow” means?
At the April 11 town hall Doug Wilson reassured the Moscow community that it has nothing to worry about. Any evangelism, he said, will be based on persuasion not coercion, and all that he wants is to be “good neighbors.” After reading Dickison’s declaration above the citizens of Moscow could have good reason to doubt this.
Controversial Actions and Views Spark Community Backlash
On Dec. 10, 2020, Christ Church initiated a campaign to “De-Mask Moscow,” and Gen. Wilson ordered a platoon of his followers into action. About 30 maskless Christ Church soldiers stormed Moscow’s Tri-State store. Fearing continued exposure to the virus, the store manager had to close because of this lawless, unneighborly invasion.
When I heard a rumor that Doug Wilson had joined forces with Steve Wilkins, a neo-Confederate pastor in Louisiana, I initially refused to believe it. But news broke that Wilson and Wilkins had written “Southern Slavery as it Was,” a book that argued that Christians had a biblical right to own slaves, and that slaves were treated kindly. A petition drive led to a full-page ad in the Daily News entitled “Not in Our Town,” signed by 1,200 outraged residents.
Robert T. McKenzie, professor of history at the University of Washington and a member of a sister Christ Church in Seattle, urged Wilson to withdraw the book for another reason other than its discredited thesis. McKenzie had determined that about 20% of the book had been lifted from Stanley Engerman and Robert Fogel’s “Time on the Cross.”
Contradictions and Biblical Interpretations on Slavery
At the April 11 town hall Doug fielded a question about the cruel treatment of southern slaves. He condemned the atrocities that happened, and he also rejected southern slavery as an “ungodly system.” This is, however, the same author who, in the slavery book, wrote that “there has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world” (p. 24).
The issue of whether the slaves were treated badly or kindly is shadowed by a more fundamental question. As the writers of the Bible allowed slavery and never abolished it, one must conclude that, with Wilson’s view that the Bible is without error in all its teachings, slavery would be an institution ordained by God.
The views expressed in this opinion column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of FāVS News. FāVS News values diverse perspectives and thoughtful analysis on matters of faith and spirituality.
Nick, I just read this a second time, and saw the nuance in your last paragraph I had not detected earlier (when I replied to you by email.) If whoever wrote the Bible did not abolish slavery, it would indeed appear that the writer(s) of the Bible could not have been “holy men of old, moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21). Either that, or they were moved by some other spirit, not quite as “holy.”
However, my reading of Scripture still strongly suggests that the bulk of it had its roots in a supernatural source. Whether that source (either God or someone who “calls himself God”) has the best interests of humanity at heart has long been a source of existential conflict for me.
The aspects of Scripture that are clearly not egalitarian continue to haunt me. But I will still hold that people like Doug Wilson fail to put Scripture in historical context. The Bible contains many precepts that are universally true, transcending the trappings of time and culture. It is sad that people don’t see this, because they are hung up on the sense of injustice that I, too, am hung up on, and that people like Doug seem to embrace almost blindly. I just don’t let my personal conflict keep me from embracing all that is good in the Word.
I do regret that Jim Wilson was unable to convince you that the suffering servant in Isaiah is indeed Jesus. As for the rest, I must think further if I am to continue to embrace Scripture as unequivocally as I have. My hope for the elevation and ultimate unity of humanity does not accept any notion that denies that all of us are created equal.
I regret having to leave two successive comments, but on reflection after my first comment, I realize I spoke too soon.
The context of 1 Peter 19-21 refers specifically to prophecy, and the writers referenced were either prophets or those who spoke for them. I don’t doubt that these guys were “speaking from God, being carried by the Holy Spirit.”
But not all the people who penned the Scriptures were of prophet status.In my heart of hearts, since I believe God was directly responsible for what landed in the Bible (not the priestly writers), it stands to reason that Paul was speaking for God in the passages I referenced in my email, showing how masters ought to treat their slaves.
If God is the ultimate author–which I believe He is–then the people who wrote about slavery didn’t have the power to do anything to change it. Slavery is no longer acceptable in established society because we have moved toward egalitarianism over the centuries. Now if we can get to the place where war is no longer acceptable in a civilized society, we’ll be great.
That God Himself did not do anything to remove either of these travesties is another story. Again, it speaks to my lifelong argument with the Almighty. I’ll continue to entertain my personal conflict, but ultimately the argument winds up in His favor. He simply knows a lot more than I do, even though large parts of his knowledge are incomprehensible.
That’s all.