“Peaceful” Moscow Protests Heat Up (UPDATED Again)

There are good reasons why both social and news media types should be cautious about narratives. In the Pacific Northwest there is a history of serious and even deadly tension between law enforcement and survivalist types. Many no longer remember the Ruby Ridge episode (1992), but the memory of that 11-day siege lives in the minds and memories of those who live in the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest. The standoff between a landowner and authorities at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in Oregon, led to the death of one person. In the Pacific Northwest and the Mountain West, Ruby Ridge and Malheur are symbols, in some circles, of an imperious government trampling the rights of the little people. There are those who are predisposed to believe the “they’re out to get us” narrative. Conspiracy theories abound in this country for a reason. Thus, stories of police “arresting worshipers” need to be told very carefully lest the situation gain momentum and spin out of control. Read more»

Video: Moscow Protests Heat Up

Local newspaper coverage…

Coffee and punches are thrown at otherwise peaceful Moscow protest

UPDATE 13:57 Pacific Sep 28, 2020

Reports are coming in that some of those who were at the Malheur uprising were also present in Moscow, Saturday for the fracas.

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


4 comments

  1. Prof. Clark—

    Thank you for your reportage on the events in Moscow, ID. If I may say, with as great an irenic spirit as I can muster, I wish you would not conflate whatever Doug Wilson is or is not suggesting his church members do with a larger concern over a certain geographic area of the country and “survivalist types”. I’m choosing not to read that as an epithet—but, rather in the best light possible. There are those of us who feel that a case has already been made AGAINST government at Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc., long ago. Here in Massachusetts (former home to REAL Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/Puritan luminaries), I can tell you that the level of statism and fear and government boot-licking is nauseating. Cities and towns look like dystopian, barrier-ridden/orange cone nightmares. We attend a local OPC congregation. We all understand here the backstory(ies) of the FV and theonomy—in the Wilson case. I’m suggesting that while obviously pertinent, it isn’t necessary to bind consciences on a larger consideration around Statism, and what appears to be a very gratifying defiance of pernicious figures in government at all levels. Many faithful Christians accept Ruby Ridge and the like as settled issues. We do not need to subscribe to the FV or theonomy to do so. The American Revolution happened in my back yard. Perhaps if successive generations had been made of the same stuff, certain descendants among us would never have felt the calling/need to migrate to a wilderness like the Pacific Northwest—to start over—in the first place. I can appreciate your animus to Wilson as a professional theologian and historian—as he represents what you (and many others) deem an errant view(s). But these actions transcend that—and represent many more millions of us. Re the video: it surely did not escape your attention that the man who was struck first threw his coffee/soda (whatever that was) squarely in the face of the “attacker”. I would have struck him, as well. The person who posted the video wrote commentary along the lines of “this is how Doug Wilson advocates the sharing of the gospel”. Come on. We are all better than that. That’s an asinine remark that’s beneath an intelligent response.
    Very respectfully—

    • Greg,

      1. Not everyone does know the background of the recent protests, e.g., the Wilsonite movement in the Mountain West and in the Pacific NW. Not everyone knows about theonomy/Christian Reconstructionism, the FV, and certainly folks don’t know the connections with survivalism. See the article by Crawford Gribben, which I’ve linked in the resources to the earlier posts. See also his forthcoming book from OUP, which I’ve read, which documents the connections.

      2. I define civil freedom in the classically American sense of the relative absence of restraint but the question here is how Christians should respond to abuses of authority?

      3. On re-watching the video I notice that open-carry guy cornered coffee guy, who should have walked away but, instead, reacted by throwing (hot) coffee on open-carry guy. A pox on both their houses. I can’t see a biblical case for striking coffee-guy. The threat was past. It would have been rage and revenge, neither of which have warrant in Scripture. Jesus said,

      “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well (Matt 5:38-40).

      I guess that coffee-guy is not a Kirker. I don’t know whether open-carry guy is a Kirker.

      • Prof. Clark—

        Thanks for the reply. I understand that not everyone is up to speed on the background/relevant theological issues—and how those would implicitly necessitate a type of engagement with secular power—secular power almost irredeemably divorced from both the letter and spirit of its constitutions/founding documents. There’s an inescapable irony in this—in that confessional/creedal fidelity (WCF, Three Forms of Unity) is where many in the know strike at the “Wilsonites” (I don’t like that term)—because of a Reformational “fidelity”, yet it doesn’t stop there—in that what’s also in question (seemingly) from all parties is a sort of fidelity to secular documents and what those imply for the proper administration of a civil State. It doesn’t need saying that our identity as Christians is irrevocably tied up in our identity as American Christians. Both of those identities are in seemingly severe declension—and so we find ourselves fighting on both fronts, all the time now, recognizing that both are truly who we are—and not only are both under attack in the abstract, it is also true that we are constantly having to reconcile within ourselves that relationship of dual-identity which faces any thinking and feeling person. We love our Savior and we love our country. It’s often extremely onerous to be forced to reconcile—in a given context—that which we would prefer to be harmonious. To your first point: while not everyone is cognizant of the issues at play, the P&R community should be, and certainly readers of this space should be. You’ve spent no little time and effort on the FV and currents in theonomy/CR. Thank you for the Crawford Gribben recommendation; it’s something I really should explore, no doubt.
        I appreciate how you define civil freedom, and I also know from this space that you have recognized a right of Americans to responsibly protest that which they feel is either immoral or illegal or otherwise negative laws, rulings, mandates, etc. Is it not true that some have called our own historic Revolution a “Presbyterian” Revolution? It seems rather easy to make a case for struggle against tyranny as being somehow in concert with a P&R worldview—and please don’t take this to mean a plea for Reconstructionism—because I don’t intend that, and I don’t think that is necessitated in this. Rather, there is some organic connection between our Reformed ideological heritage and our very short patience with an errant civil State, or civil magistrate. Personally, I’m of Scottish heritage, and I’m also very proud of my Covenanter forbears—for what that’s worth. Of course, we are Christians. But I don’t see how that should abrogate our commensurate response to escalating injustice—rather, it should encourage it. As another aside—the man in the video who’s carrying the sidearm has, presumably, every legal right to do so, in his State, and I fully applaud his exploiting his right to do so. Should he abuse this, his right should of course be somehow restricted or made forfeit.
        Re: the confrontation—yes, there was provocation with the hot coffee. And I would agree: there was no “threat”— if by “threat” you mean threat to person, life or property, that is. But by definition, there never was, nor probably would there be “threat” to that standard. In THAT case, he would have been in his right to draw the sidearm and even use it. But, notice that he did not. He met his assailant commensurately—with a bit of physical force. In my view, he DID act with restraint—and he stopped short of real and lasting physical harm. We all know the verses you quote; the “attacked” was not suffering on account of Christ, nor was his identity as a Christian being assailed (not that the video’s audio is particularly great). I can well imagine that he was being taunted and mocked and provoked for not wearing a mask—which is not “coffee-guy’s” purview in the first place—rather, it’s the purview of the civil magistrate in question—which puts us back to the starting point. I understand that you want to be measured and conservative—and I’m also aware that you don’t want unnecessary scandal for the cause of Christ. I get it, and I don’t either. But we also don’t want to be overly censorious on the issues of self-defense and personal honor, and traditional masculinity—let’s call it—either. The virtual abrogation of these things has harmed the culture enough, already. As a final note: I really must insist that the commentary on the video—and the website from which it comes—is deserving of reproach. The remarks are snarky, or smart-alecky—if you prefer—and the whole thing amounts to a kind of dishonest representation/defamation against Wilson. I’m sure you’d agree that the bearing of false witness is grave sin. No rational person believes Wilson coaches people to witness for Christ through violence. Published errors of history or theology are a different case, altogether—and he has already been taken to the proverbial woodshed for these. He need not suffer immoral defamation/caricature—

        • Greg,

          I’m trying to write today so…

          Thanks for the reply. I understand that not everyone is up to speed on the background/relevant theological issues—and how those would implicitly necessitate a type of engagement with secular power—secular power almost irredeemably divorced from both the letter and spirit of its constitutions/founding documents. There’s an inescapable irony in this—in that confessional/creedal fidelity (WCF, Three Forms of Unity) is where many in the know strike at the “Wilsonites” (I don’t like that term)—because of a Reformational “fidelity”, yet it doesn’t stop there—in that what’s also in question (seemingly) from all parties is a sort of fidelity to secular documents and what those imply for the proper administration of a civil State.

          I don’t entirely follow your line of thought. Sorry.

          Wilsonites is an apt term. It is a movement organized around a single, strong personality who has defied both civil and ecclesiastical norms and authorities. I’ve documented this.

          It doesn’t need saying that our identity as Christians is irrevocably tied up in our identity as American Christians.

          I don’t accept this premise.

          One benefit of distinguishing a twofold kingdom is to distinguish those two identities. That needs to be done.

          Both of those identities are in seemingly severe declension—and so we find ourselves fighting on both fronts, all the time now, recognizing that both are truly who we are—and not only are both under attack in the abstract, it is also true that we are constantly having to reconcile within ourselves that relationship of dual-identity which faces any thinking and feeling person. We love our Savior and we love our country. It’s often extremely onerous to be forced to reconcile—in a given context—that which we would prefer to be harmonious.

          Welcome to pilgrim life between the advents. Take a listen to the series, “As It Was In The Days of Noah.” I’m addressing this very thing.

          To your first point: while not everyone is cognizant of the issues at play, the P&R community should be, and certainly readers of this space should be. You’ve spent no little time and effort on the FV and currents in theonomy/CR. Thank you for the Crawford Gribben recommendation; it’s something I really should explore, no doubt.

          Unfortunately, not everyone reads the HB.

          I appreciate how you define civil freedom, and I also know from this space that you have recognized a right of Americans to responsibly protest that which they feel is either immoral or illegal or otherwise negative laws, rulings, mandates, etc. Is it not true that some have called our own historic Revolution a “Presbyterian” Revolution?

          This is what is known in the history biz a “Whig History” or something like it. No, the American Revolution wasn’t a “Presbyterian” or a Baptist (I’ve heard that story too) revolution.

          It seems rather easy to make a case for struggle against tyranny as being somehow in concert with a P&R worldview—and please don’t take this to mean a plea for Reconstructionism—because I don’t intend that, and I don’t think that is necessitated in this. Rather, there is some organic connection between our Reformed ideological heritage and our very short patience with an errant civil State, or civil magistrate. Personally, I’m of Scottish heritage, and I’m also very proud of my Covenanter forbears—for what that’s worth. Of course, we are Christians. But I don’t see how that should abrogate our commensurate response to escalating injustice—rather, it should encourage it. As another aside—the man in the video who’s carrying the sidearm has, presumably, every legal right to do so, in his State, and I fully applaud his exploiting his right to do so. Should he abuse this, his right should of course be somehow restricted or made forfeit.

          Yes, there were theocratic Reformed writers (which was most all of them prior to the 18th century), who wrote influential treatises on resistance to tyrants. These treatises, e.g., Beza, De iure magistratuum and Anonymous, Vindicae contra tyrannos both influenced the American Revolution as did Althusius, but the American Republic isn’t a theocracy nor a covenanted state, which is why the Covenanters didn’t participate for such a long time.

          Re: the confrontation—yes, there was provocation with the hot coffee. And I would agree: there was no “threat”— if by “threat” you mean threat to person, life or property, that is. But by definition, there never was, nor probably would there be “threat” to that standard.

          In THAT case, he would have been in his right to draw the sidearm and even use it. But, notice that he did not. He met his assailant commensurately—with a bit of physical force. In my view, he DID act with restraint—and he stopped short of real and lasting physical harm. We all know the verses you quote; the “attacked” was not suffering on account of Christ, nor was his identity as a Christian being assailed (not that the video’s audio is particularly great). I can well imagine that he was being taunted and mocked and provoked for not wearing a mask—which is not “coffee-guy’s” purview in the first place—rather, it’s the purview of the civil magistrate in question—which puts us back to the starting point.

          Coffee guy was, as it were, out of ammo the moment he threw the coffee. A wise man would go home and wash his clothes. A wiser man wouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Comments are closed.