Douglas Wilson’s and Christopher Hitchens’ involvement in the recent Christian booksellers’ Expo and Wilson’s involvement in this years’ conference with John Piper is a significant insertion of Wilson, and by association his Kirk of north Idaho, into the consciousness of broader evangelicalism. You can see Piper’s and Wilson’s public discussion of Wilson’s involvement with Hitchens here .  Many Christians who have an understanding of Wilson’s pedigree and history over the last two decades think this is actually a serious insertion of an aberrant and dangerous controversialist into the mainstream.  Molly Worthen tackles this issue tactfully, if not coyly, in her write up on Wilson in Christianity Today this last summer, before Wilson was invited to John Piper’s conference. You can see Worthen’s article here.  (I replied with commentary on Worthen’s article here.)

Now, media coverage of the movie Collision – a presentation of the three day tour of Hitchens and Wilson – is spiking in order to introduce the release of the movie this week, which is, arguably, at least in proper context, an important cultural event for America. You can see, for example, NPR’s interview with Hitchens and Wilson here, (conducted by Guy Raz).

For anyone interested in the immediate context of Collision, I recommend at least two sources: First, I recommend Canon Press’ short book  (Canon Press is the Kirk’s inhouse press) containing the original debate between Hitchens and Wilson, titled ‘Is Christianity Good for the World?’ (2008).  I provided a summary of this debate, which you can find here. This summary was intended to be rigorous and exhaustive enough for the reader that did not have access to book, but this debate was already published online by Christianity Today, which can be found with a few keystrokes in Google (you will need to wade through many pages picture-framed by evangelical advertising).

Second, I highly recommend listening to the tour debate at Westminster Theological Seminary in full, without the movie-craft of Collision (Collision is produced by a Kirker and an evangelical movie-maker). You can find this debate, hosted by the Seminary’s website, here.  I think proper immediate context can be well served by listening to this debate raw.

(For extra-credit homework, please also watch the exchange between Hitchens and the four Christian apologists at the Christian Book Expo, which you can find here.  And if you have a bit more time on your hands, you do not want to miss Hitchens’ article in Newsweek back in March:  ‘The Texas-sized Debate Over Teaching Evolution’.  Hitchens begins by mentioning  the Book Expo. Please note the link to the right of this site, titled Christopher Hitchens’ Papers.)

But these two sources – the Canon Press debate and the Westminster debate – are just for necessary, immediate context. As for broader context, well, where to begin? 

The function of a religious leader in the act of apologetics has little to do with the argumentative content of discussion (as I will argue as I continue to develop my philosophy and social psychology of religion and informal anthropology with respect to the Kirk). In the case of Wilson’s performance of late, this factor is multiplied exponentially. I say this for a number of reasons but will name only two here: First, Wilson is not interacting with Hitchens’ arguments nor supporting his select assertions through the same rigorous and rational habits of modern apologists that have preceded him – from C.S. Lewis to Greg Bahnsen.  This is actually not intended as a criticism, given what I take to be the social role of Christian apologetics. Second, this association with Hitchens is a very interesting stage for Wilson, and precisely what is not being discussed explicitly about Wilson in these exchanges is more important than the what is.  What Wilson does not say, given the historical and social context, as well as what Hitchens implies about Christianity and her apologists only generally, is more important that the content of rational dialog and what Wilson and Hitchens are saying explicitly about one another. Just what is so immensely interesting about Wilson and his Kirk, and why Wilson is one of the most ‘important’ religious leaders in America today, has very little to do with Wilson’s rehashing half-baked ideas about objective standards for morality, rationality, and beauty.

It is worth emphasing here that I had been working on a book for a couple years, The Kirk: Mother of War. My primary work so far was conducted before Wilson and Hitchens made contact and before, in fact, I knew who Hitchens was.  I remain convinced as I follow this media coverage on the intersection of “two lives colliding”, as well as the largely uninterrupted footage of Collision, that this broader context is necessary for a full and proper understanding of the linguistic sound bytes we have seen so far and might continue to be exposed to. Those appreciative of Hitchens’ past journalism will no doubt understand the importance of an expanded, historical, narrative, and anthropological investigation.

As I would not be able to say about his brother , Evan Wilson is a man of peace. I found refuge and hospitality years ago in a sub-cultural of Moscow, Idaho, ruled by Evan and known as the Big Haus.  Click here  for a recent introduction.  I guess that sometimes you do reap what you sow and you will be found out – one way or the other – later in life.

(Update: Check out the comment section on this one – turned out fairly interesting.)

Finally. I present to you another post that is not about the man Douglas Wilson. This time, I write only about the men.  There are, of course, tens of thousands of Douglas Wilsons currently in the world.

 And Pooh cried from a dark corner of the Wood, “Christopher Ritchens! Help!”

Sure enough, a mixed story leans momentarily to the good.  He came. My Inbox has been full of good advice from my new friend. I will copy and paste my favorite selections.  (Imagine having to re-type them all out, what an enormous task that would be.)  Here is Christopher Hitchens’  advice to a middle-aged contrarian:

_______________

You rather flatter and embarrass me, when you inquire my advice as to how a radical or “contrarian” life may be lived. 

. . . It may be that you, Michael, recognise something of yourself in these instances; a disposition to resistance, however slight, against arbitrary authority or witless mass opinion, or a thrill of recognition when you encounter some well-wrought phrase from a free intelligence.  If so, let us continue to correspond so that I may draw from your experience even as you flatter me by asking to draw upon mine.  For the moment, do bear in mind that the cynics have a point, of a sort, when they speak of the “professional nay-sayer.” To be in opposition is not to be a nihilist.  And there is no decent or charted way of making a living at it.  It is something you are, and not something you do.

. . . Henry Kissinger, challenged on television to meet my accusation that he was responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, responded with a maniacal and desperate attempt to change the subject, and denounced me as a denier of the Nazi Holocaust. . . . I tell you about it not just in order to boast, though there is that.  It went to make up for many, many other months, when the celebrity culture and the spin-scum and the crooked lawyers and pseudo-statesmen and clerics seemed to have everything their own way.  They will be back, of course. They are always “back.” They never leave.  But the victory is not pre-determined.  And there are vindications to be had as well, far sweeter than anything contained in the meretricious illusion of good notices or “a good press.”

 . . . The essence of an independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks  The term “intellectual” was originally coined by those in France who believed in the guilt of Captain Alfred Dreyfus.  They thought that they were defending an organic, harmonious and ordered society against nihilism, and they deployed this contemptuous word against those they regarded as the diseased, the introspective, the disloyal and the unsound. . . . the figure of Emile Zola offers encouragement, and his singular campaign for justice is one of the imperishable examples of what may be accomplished by an individual.

Zola did not in fact require much intellectual capacity to mount his defense of one wronged man.  He applied, first, the forensic and journalistic skills that he was used to employing for the social background of his novels.  These put him in the possession of the unarguable facts.  But the mere facts were not sufficient, because the anti-Dreyfusards did not base their real case on the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant.  They openly maintained that, for reasons of state, it was better not to reopen the case.  Such a reopening would only serve to dissipate public confidence in order and in institutions. . . . (more…)

The kind lady at the local Christian bookstore has been poised with my cell phone number in hand for a few days now, knowing my determination to somehow find an April issue of Christianity Today somewhere in San Diego. “Is there someone you know in this issue?” she asked. “Yes, there is.” Molly Worthen now has a seven page article on my old teacher, titled “The Controversialist.”

I received the call Friday afternoon. A pleasant sense of accomplishment came over me once the magazine was physically in my hands.  A trip to Borders Books and Barnes and Noble had already turned out dry; neither of the local stores still carry Christianity Today. Although, I did accidentally see the name ‘Christopher Hitchens’ while browsing the magazine stands. Hitchens has decided to write a letter to the president of the United States – no more arrogant than arguing with God I suppose. The same was true for the local libraries: no Christianity Today and plenty of Hitchens. The small local library here in Cardiff By The Sea has likely never carried Christianity Today. Yet, the last time I stopped in, someone had thrown the most recent issue of Vanity Fair on top of the displayed weekend newspaper.

I went down to the Seaside Market to get a 6 pack of Heineken after writing the rough draft of this entry and once again had the experience. I found the latest issue of Vanity Fair staring at me at the checkout stand. Heineken is more difficult to locate at a grocery store than Christopher Hitchens. And this was only out of four magazines: three magazines of hot women and one with half naked men wearing barrels. It was the barrels that grabbed my attention. Perhaps Hitchens is becoming, unknowingly, the Big Brother he despises – he is everywhere, and he lets us all know what he thinks we ought to think.  

After this journey in search for April’s issue, there is little question in my mind why Worthen opens her piece with a paragraph extolling the accomplishments and status of, not Douglas Wilson, but my Big Brother Hitchens.  In reality, I do not recall knowing of the man before the Kirk came up with her latest marketing idea. Once again, I owe a good deal to my teacher Douglas Wilson. Another four books by Hitchens are on their way.

Before getting to the obvious task at hand, I wish to first seek some patience from the reader.  I keep saying that Pooh’s Think, Part 2, is not “about Douglas Wilson,” only to then continue writing about Douglas Wilson.  And it will not end here.  Not only is my analysis of Wilson’s debate (Canon Press) with Hitchens incomplete, I also have the two hour discussion between Hitchens and the four-and-a-half apologists at the Christian Book Expo to address – and boy was that something.  And now here is Molly Worthen once again writing about my beloved Kirk: “Wilson is becoming someone who even those minding their own business in the noncontroversial ‘mainstream’ cannot afford to ignore.” If other scholars would stop writing articles about Wilson or giving Wilson the stage lights of ‘debate,’ I could get further along with my book and write posts on something else.  As it is, I ask you to bear with me just a little bit longer. 

But I am starting to wonder if my promise to say off topic was a bit premature.  After all, if I was the only expert on the European Green Crab, would anyone object to my authoring a site dedicated to that species? I would think that my task would produce additional justification; the species of my expertise has been almost extinct the last 400 years.

____________

Molly Worthen is once again to be commended for her judicious reporting on the Kirk.  Her first task, in 2006, was a piece for the New York Times Magazine, “Onward Christian Soldiers.”    She touched briefly on Douglas Wilson, of all appearances a “lumber jack,” but that was not the focus of her thesis. The Christian soldiers were the students, fellows, and doctors of New St. Andrews College.  In this latest, the topic just is Douglas Wilson, the controversialist. I recommend reading the article, and not just my response below. I will post a link to the article here as soon as one is available. (more…)

I promise. This is not a blog about Douglas Wilson.  It’s just that historical roots have a habit of bringing forth (or revealing) new fruits, nuts, and nut cases every now and then. My introduction of Pooh’s Think Part 2 has presented an unfortunate opportunity to address an old matter with the sort of bearishness better designed for Part 1. However, this is an opportunity to defend Douglas Wilson and New St. Andrew’s from the potential attacks of a real enemy within. The following is a letter I wrote this weekend to an old friend – very old I am sad to say – currently politicking in the Kirk. I have changed the name and any other information that would easily reveal his identity. I have not yet received a reply, but I do not plan to follow this issue beyond this post. Hopefully, the old historical roots will hibernate for a while. 

_____________________

Mr. Jenkins,

After I sent you a note to let you know that Pooh’s Think, Part 2 was up and running with comments, you offered a startling reply. Am I surprised?  Well, on one level, of course.  This is shocking. You have known me for 15 years and were a ######, a school mate, business partner, and so on. Why do the strangest and most hurtful attacks come from precisely those who know better and those who have best access to alternative methods? But in another sense, I am not surprised. This is almost to be expected. Shocking things from the Kirk towards me and my family are no longer, well, shocking. There is a bizarre twist this time around, though.  You write from within the Kirk, but as an enemy to the Kirk – the real kind, no ‘kill pooh’ kind of fairy tales here.  In what follows, I am afraid I will take some uncharitable liberties in my tone, since I have finally lost my patience with your political brutality against me and the Kirk and Douglas Wilson.

I will remind you of the full content of your reply later on in this letter to you. I want to begin by pointing out what is perhaps the most, should I say, religious rhetoric you were able to muster against an old, faithful friend.   After almost three years of silence, you now want to know if “who” I am is either a close friend and business partner or someone who simply “went off the deep end”, both possible identities landing on polar extremes, and from your view, mutually exclusive.  And as if that was not enough slash and salt, you also admit, albeit implicitly, that you have in fact intentionally shunned me and my family over the last three years. What one does not know does not hurt them and so you wanted to make sure that I was in the know. I have been up to this moment someone “off the deep end” and therefore someone you know you would not work with, share your life with, or have your family get to know.   Being off the deep end must be a pretty serious thing. I am not surprised. When this sort of thing comes up in the Kirk with respect to me, it is rarely a subtle reflection, but rather more along the lines of a primal grunt, vaguely implying crazy, insane, mad, deluded, lost it, vile, deceitful, slanderous, mutinous, patricide, creepy, sucking chest wound, victim of father hunger and so on.

Mr. Jenkins, I believe you are wrong in what you have done with me and my family, but I am happy that you have at least agreed to it in writing.  It seems prudent to remind you of the historical facts about me, you, and the Kirk before commenting further on your letter to me.

Just a number of months previous to the beginning of Pooh’s Think, Part 1, you were, in essence, bad-mouthing New St. Andrews and Douglas Wilson. You told me I was ahead of the game, in comparison to the guys in Moscow.  But there was a context to this praise. You were seeking to bring me into a “secret” group that would plan a New St. Andrew’s on the East Coast. This new institution would need to be established in a subversive way. It needed the resources of New St. Andrew’s West but might not receive the blessing and help from Douglas Wilson directly without careful political maneuvering.

On March 22, 2005, I wrote to Doug Jones, Peter Leithart, and Douglas Wilson, as well as copying to you:

A friend of mine is in serious planning for a Christian liberal arts college-like experiment on the east coast.  We’ve been conversing, and I’ve attempted to share my own vision in order to help shape the direction of whatever might come to be.  Below is part of that vision. 

In an attempt at bringing me into your ‘inner circle’ while excluding Douglas Wilson, you responded with an email only to me:

. . . we need to play our cards ‘close to the chest’.  There are a number of ways that this project can go astray and I do NOT want certain individuals to know what we are doing until they can do nothing about it.  . . . .  Before we unveil our intentions, we need to make sure everyone within the ‘inner circle’ is on the same sheet of music.  This inner circle includes [Doug] Jones, you, #####, myself, and #### (my #### buddy).  You need to think of this as a de-facto school or elder board.  There can be discussions outside of the board but they must be limited and they must always tow the party line.  Soul-searching must stay within the family.

You may not see the wisdom of this course but I can assure you that it will pay off.  I view this project as high warfare.  I am not interested in taking prisoners or sparing the weak.  I intend to kill and slay and destroy and drive the enemy back to the very gates of hell.  But one of the main ways that an army can be weakened in their power is by not being unified on their vision or by unveiling their intentions to the enemy (including the spies within their own camp).

This is the brainstorming phase, so your ideas are very appropriate and I’m glad that you are talking to Jones and Leithart about this.  I do ask that you tell them to please keep it under wraps.  The worst thing that could happen is that all of Moscow hears of this.  Please don’t think I’m paranoid.  I just don’t want my prey to get away. 

What has followed this deranged note from you has demonstrated to me that your ‘inner circle’ was little more than a psychological method of manipulation, well described by C.S. Lewis in his essay The Inner Ring: “Of all the passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very  bad things.”

Soon after this note, when I let you know I mentioned some concerns you shared about the direction of New St. Andrew’s to Douglas Wilson (I was mentoring with him at the time), you responded in a harsh way, as if I had committed mutiny or revealed some kind of patented technology. You even threatened me with expulsion from the inner ring.  (more…)