Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Good Question

Someone just asked me a question that I believe deserves front-page exposure along with the answer:

Though I don’t oppose what you are doing, I would be interested to know why you think it necessary to expose Mr. Wilkins on this score.

I answered:

You ask a good question and the answer is simple: the Federal Visionists maintain that Wilkins is a martyr. In fact, Wilson even compared him to Machen (hence the nickname). But if they want to play the martyr card, which they have done very well so far, then they have to consider ALL of Wilkins’ testimony (remember that the word “martyr” means “witness”). This includes his written works, which he passed off as his own and sold to the general public when he didn’t write a word of it. The man is a complete fake, an intellectual vacuum, and a theological scoundrel. And he is the first Federal Vision martyr.

Is he a Christian? I have no idea. But here we see wholesale violations of the Eighth and Ninth Commandments that he sold for profit, which cuts to the heart of the issue — CHARACTER. This is Steve Wilkins’ character. This is his witness in black, white, and yellow. This is a leader in the Federal Visionist camp. This is their idea of honor and nobility.

So if Wilson and his monkey boys are going to showboat Steve Wilkins before the world, then I believe it’s imperative for them to decorate their cabin cruiser with ALL of his brilliant lights. They want him, they can have him. All of him.

But I want to add that this new wrinkle in the Federal Vision should give LAP another reason to contemplate Bob Mattes’ “friendly advice.” Do they really want to keep hold of this guy with all this luggage? And we haven’t even begun either. We have unbelievable examples in future posts — and all of them reveal the CHARACTER of Steven “Machen” Wilkins.

Thank you.

5 comments:

Publius said...

Did Wilkins include a bibliography? Does he name his sources in _any_ way?

Mark T. said...

Yes to both questions.

Publius said...

Then Wilkins is not a plagarist. There's a difference between using someone's facts and copying their expression.

There's only so many ways to say mundane facts. Either Lee severed three terms as Governor of Virginia or he didn't. Either Lee had four kids within five years or he didn't.

And a pop hagiography like this does not require as much citation as an academic work. It just doesn't.

Hear me out. Wilkins teaches deadly errors, but he did not do this. You have not presented evidence to support this claim.

Mark T. said...

Publius,

Generally, we’re on the same page but in this instance you’re wrong. Please read “Plagiarism Defined,” and the point you make in your first paragraph overlooks Wilkins’ use of two men’s outlines in his book, which is plagiarism by every definition.

Thank you.

Publius said...

Wilkins was not ripping off an outline. He was doing a different sort of work entirely. What you call an outline is merely a time line. You don't know what you're talking about. Wilkins will be able to use your claim he is being deliberately misinterpreted. Please, stop this.