New Website
U P D A T E : Sean Mahaffey has written several comments that he wants posted on this website but since he has been consistently rude and deceitful I have exercised my editorial prerogative to censor him. Nevertheless, here is a shortened version of his claims quoted directly from his comments; please check the comments section to learn about my two witnesses who furnished me with their narratives:
I wrote the article in an attempt to dissuade people from smoking marijuana. . . . I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, bought, sold, handled, condoned or recommended marijuana. . . . The Squire was not a school or church newsletter. . . . I started the Squire mailing list from names from the CWSC [Christian Worldview Students Conference] in Virginia. The intended audience was college students and other 18–30 year olds. . . We added the names of friends and family and other names that were sent to us. We only had a mailing list of 400–500. . . . The Squire was under the general oversight of the pastors of the church — at our request they read all the issues before they were published. . . . Pastor Booth was on the school board and taught one class a year at the school (usually Logic). . . . Randy Booth was instumental [sic] in establishing Veritas. Without Randy Booth . . . the school would never have been established. . . . I am not drop-dead certain that no student at Veritas ever received or read a copy of the Squire. . . we printed about 500 copies of each issue and there were some church families on the mailing list. . . . Aaron Booth . . . fell into sin while he was in college. . . . The article was written before the drug scandal. I’m not sure if Aaron read the article, but I know it was sent to a lot of NSA students. . . . I don’t have a copy of any letter about Pastor Booth and I wouldn’t send you anything if I did.
Here’s a new fully documented website named Ganja Vision, which is dedicated to an article written by CREC elder Sean Mahaffey on the biblical arguments for smoking marijuana. Although Mahaffey was not an elder when he wrote this column, he was a teacher at one of the Fearless Leader’s classical Christian schools in the ACCS. Furthermore, I suspect that the incredible irresponsibility he showed in writing this piece for the school paper was the deciding factor in making him an elder.
Thank you.
14 comments:
It's amazing how these ideas have been cross-pollinated through the Moscow, Idaho--Monroe, Louisiana connections over the years. Wilkins taught on "Christian Liberty" in the early 90's and called our nation's drug laws "doctrines of demons." Our nation's drug laws were "Satanic," he said. During these lessons, PCP, marijuana, and LSD were discussed. "Normal use" was not condemned. You were the "stronger brother" if you could use these substances without being ruled by them. God gave us these substances, he said, even though some were man-made and originally intended for evil. The intent of their original creators was not a factor. LSD was specifically cited as an example of a substance that was originally created for evil during these discussions. It was not evil and its use was not evil, regardless of why it was originally created. The one who abstained was the "weaker brother" according to these lessons, although it was his right to abstain. He just had to make sure he was abstaining for the "right" reasons. He could abstain freely, as long as he understood that he was not more virtuous for doing so. He could not abstain and look down on others who did not. If he did, he was in sin and guilty of adhering to "doctrines of demons." He had to understand that he was weak and those who did not abstain, but used these substances without being ruled by them, were strong. The purpose of these substances? God provided them for our "edification." We had a lot of strong brothers.
They taught what later became known as "The Federal Vision."
Interesting comment and I believe you. Wilkins’ son was one of the players in the drug ring where Booth’s son was dealing, and I know that Booth’s son was tight with Mahaffey: “Wisdom is justified by all her children.” The FV is a den of iniquity.
My goodness did all this strike a note. Of course with these people (Wilson and company) one hesitates to make such connections simply because they are so cloaked in traditional Christian clothing (or try to give that impression), but once you bring up pot-head culture and that whole universe (which most all of us have some experience with or just in observing) it all starts to come together. That loopy grin that is never off of Wilson's mug. The bizarre blog style of Leithart which is the brain equivalent of scarfing down junk food at the local 7/11. The "I want what I want, and I want it now" juvenile attitude of them all (FVers) and the intellectual self-estimates that puts them on Sinai and everybody else at some uncool level of unhipness. It is juvenile delinquency "Party on!" drug culture being carried on by fifty-year-old teenagers. And of course the spirit of disobedience finds its way into it all rather easily, doctrinally and every other way...
Excellent comment. And I’ve missed you.
Thanks. I had FV fatigue.
Steve Wilkins’ teachings on drug use and “Christian Liberty” differ from Sean Mahaffey’s “Ganja Vision” article on one major point: Wilkins does not advocate obeying our nation’s drug laws. Doing so is sinful, he says and constitutes adhering to “doctrines of demons.” Wilkins asks the question: “who are you gonna obey, God or Man?” He is very clear: God’s law takes precedence and supercedes the law of the land when the two conflict. All the civil magistrate can do is kill you. Jesus can (and will) kill you and throw you into hell forever if you do not obey Him. So what are you going to say, he says, when the civil magistrate threatens you? Wilkins answers: “Don’t throw me in that brier patch!” Because you know that the most the civil magistrate can do is kill you and if you’re following God’s law, you’ll go to heaven. He cannot destroy your soul. But if you adhere to the civil magistrate’s law when it conflicts with the law of God, both your body and soul will be destroyed….forever.
It’s surprising, with all that has been discussed about the Federal Vision, that more has not been written on this key aspect of the theology. There is simply no way to understand this culture without it. You can hang around and read all of their writings you want: you’ll never get it unless you understand how fundamental drug use and the doctrines of civil disobedience are to this theology. Anyone who has studied drug culture and the dynamics of drug groups will find many parallels in this culture. These lesson tapes were sent all over the country for many years. This doctrine is well known, although it was later de-emphasized in formal teachings. Wilkins later conceded that new converts and “weaker brothers” might stumble if they were introduced to this too quickly. Some would stop up their ears, scream, and run away, if they were introduced to this “before they’re ready,” he said. They had to gradually be eased into it because, “we live in a sinful world and they’ve been influenced by our sinful culture.” He was very clear; it was not his fault if they stumbled and turned away because of his position on drugs: they were in sin. Not him. Their children were another matter. Children would be taught the “official position” on drug use as soon as possible. Many knew their parents did not agree. Their "teachers" knew it as well. These children were told by their “Sunday School” teachers that each new generation would be more holy than the last. Their parents had been influenced by our evil culture and could not see. They, however, would be “more holy” than their parents. They would be given more “truth” than their parents had received growing up and were expected to be “more holy” than their parents. That was the natural progression of things. Many parents woke up too late to find that their children did not share their views on drug use: they were, indeed, very holy and self-righteous about it to boot. The irony is, many parents withdrew their children from the public school system for this very reason: to shield them from drugs and all their heartbreak and self-destruction. As hard as these parents tried to avoid it and do right by their children in attending a church with a pastor ordained by the PCA, they still did not fail to meet their appointment in Samarra.
Apparently many have taken Wilkins’ teaching on drugs to heart. The teachings were certainly popular among church youth and made them popular in the surrounding area. The church is known among area youth as a place where drug use is Biblically justified by the “cool preacher.” Wilkins’ church is especially popular among the local Youth Symphony and Little Theatre youth groups. At least two of his children are heavily involved in the performing arts, like their father. Wilkins, in his youth, was the lead singer in a rock and roll band, back at his home in Alabama. Wilkins came to Jesus (or religion at least) during this time. Like so many who came to Christianity after being involved in the pop culture of the late sixties and early seventies, he incorporated parts of his old life into Christianity. He did not “reform” and become Christian; he reformed “Christianity” to fit his ideals. That’s why his teaching validates drug use. That’s why Wilkins’ theology has always included the Southern demigods, Jackson and Lee, and endorsed many of the attendant myths of the “Lost Cause” of the Old South. Wilkins doesn’t try to conform to Christianity. He conforms Christianity to his own personal beliefs. Instead of being created in God’s image, Wilkins created a god, and a supporting belief system, to fit his own image. Wilkins did not travel to Jerusalem on his spiritual journey. He never left his home in Alabama. And he’s brought all his friends there.
Just consider the images from the 2008 Pastor’s Conference. Where is he standing wearing that mask? In the pulpit. Whenever I had a problem with something Wilkins preached in one of his sermons, I would go discuss it with him. He would tell me that it was God Who was speaking when he ascended the pulpit. God’s Own voice spoke through him, he said. He was only the conduit. He said, “God has convicted you in your own heart; you don’t have a problem with what I’m saying; you have a problem with God Himself. You need to repent.” Wilkins and the Elders taught us that his ascension into the pulpit was a very holy event. We were to assemble quietly before worship and pray or meditate as we waited and prepared our hearts and minds to receive the Word of God. The pictures from the 2008 Pastor’s Conference are very symbolic. Anyone who has stood before Steve Wilkins and questioned him about one of his sermons realizes that there can be no clearer illustration of how false he is than these pictures. After all, he is standing in that very same holy pulpit wearing a hideous mask. According to Wilkins, he becomes the voice of God when he ascends the pulpit: he represents God to us. So who is this standing there now, like a stone wall, in what should be God’s Own holy place? What “god” is being represented there? Bacchus? Or Dionysus? It is very appropriate that many of the followers of this new deity Wilkins represents are masked as well. But masked or not, they are the same: they have all received his mark.
Mr. Mahaffey,
I will publish your comment under one condition: you must offer factual corrections with evidence and not false impressions because false impressions are false witness. For example, you deny that The Squire was a school or church newsletter but you leave it without a correction, and since you are a liar you force me to conclude that you’re playing word games — that The Squire was the school newspaper as opposed to the school newsletter. Please tell me and my readers to whom you sent Volume 1 Number 2. For another example, you say that Sister Booth was never headmaster at Veritas and since you are a liar I don’t believe you because you don’t offer a correction, only innuendo. So tell me was he the Principal, the founder, the superior nun — what was he?
Too many witnesses contradict you and your facts are consistently wrong. Forceful rhetoric aside, false impressions are false witness and your half-baked denials don’t compare to this denial: “I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, bought, sold, handled, condoned or recommended marijuana. Nor do I have any desire to do so.” Get real, do you really think this denial is even remotely plausible. People don’t write articles such as yours unless they’ve had the munchies. I read the article; I saw the header (did you do the artwork?): Dude — you either are or were a loadie.
Furthermore, I remember reading this exchange:
http://poohsthink.com/?p=248
http://poohsthink.com/?p=249
http://poohsthink.com/?p=250
So I encourage you to lay down your weary bong and come clean. Tell us about the drug abuse in your school and its connection to other CREC drug rings. Learn to tell the truth. Break the code of silence.
Thank you.
Mr. Mahaffey,
You have not met my conditions and you have not answered all of my questions, but I truly appreciate some of the information you provided. The problem with reading your comments is that we speak fundamentally different languages, even though we both use the English tongue. You are a liar and cannot communicate without lying, which includes your favorite device of leaving false impressions. I, however, have dedicated my blog to exposing lies and liars, such as yourself, and I generally differentiate between documented facts and testimony I receive from reliable witnesses.
For example, I obtained The Squire from a pastor whose church a member of your confederation tried splitting and I confirmed its contents from a former member of the church that Sister Booth tried splitting. I met these men independent of each other and wasn’t looking to meet them; they literally just fell my way out of the blue. Their testimony corroborated each other’s on such points as Sister Booth’s role in the school and the nature of The Squire, but I can see how your testimony clarifies theirs but does not contradict it.
So once we establish the facts here I will be glad to post them as well any corrections that may be necessary. Therefore, for the record, I believe you have communicated the following points:
The Squire was an independent publication that was subject to the general oversight of your elders.
Four of you wrote and published The Squire for students — not high school students — and you obtained most of your mailing list from CWSC (Christian Worldview Students Conference).
You are drop-dead certain that no students from Veritas ever received a copy of The Squire and that members of their families never attended the Christian Worldview Students Conference so that they could not have received it.
Sister Booth was a board member and teacher at Veritas but he was never headmaster.
You have never yada yada yada marijuana.
You have made these things clear. But you are still suspiciously unclear at certain points. For example, what role did Sister Booth have in establishing Veritas? and how are you so certain that no students from Veritas received The Squire? You say that my “facts are consistently wrong,” but I want to determine your veracity because your facts don’t add up.
Also, I have some follow-up questions for you:
When did you publish this anti-marijuana piece — before or after Aaron Booth’s trafficking problems?
What was your relationship with Aaron Booth at that time?
Did he ever read this piece before he was caught trafficking illegal substances to minors?
Finally, I will put all of your comments on my front page and leave them there for a week if you would forward me a copy of the letter written by the elders of the church that Sister Booth tried to split, where they declared him a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And if you cannot obtain a copy of the letter, I would appreciate as much information regarding that event as possible.
Thank you.
I have answered your questions. Please post my comments.
Sean Mahaffey
You said that you would print my replies if I answered your questions about the nature of the Squire and the nature of Pastor Booth's role in Verits. I have done this. Please post my comments.
Sean Mahaffey
Mr. Mahaffey,
I wrote, “I will publish your comment under one condition: you must offer factual corrections with evidence and not false impressions because false impressions are false witness.” These conditions seem pretty clear to me: “factual corrections with evidence and not false impressions,” but you have furnished no evidence and you continue to leave false impressions and make false representations, which is one more reason I call you a liar.
Unlike you, I am not a CREC monkey boy; I actually live in the real world where real words have real meaning and honest people don’t make it up as they go along, so you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t cow to your demands. But if you’re ever interested in truthful discourse, which includes showing me a little respect, then I will give you all the attention necessary. Until then, please go away. And stay off the ganja weed; it’s killing your brain cells.
One last thing, I think it’s fair to say that your facts are consistently wrong.
Thank you.
Mr. Mahaffey,
As I said, your facts are consistently wrong. For example, I do not have a copy of The Squire; someone sent me a couple of pages of hard copy in the mail, which was all that they had (it was the pastor of the church that one of your CREC monkey boys tried to split). He bore witness to the things I wrote, as well as someone who is a former member of the church that Sister Booth tried to split. Do you see how splitting hairs looks petty?
Regarding slander, first of all, if it’s in print it’s not slander, it’s libel. Second, I have libeled you to the same extent that you have furnished contrary evidence, which is to say that I have not libeled you at all. But I must note your quick use of the ad hominem; it does not surprise me.
Finally, let this be a lesson to you that you are not in charge and your lies carry no weight with me. Nevertheless, I will update the post to reflect some of your testimony. But please take a word of advice from someone who means you no harm: get out of the CREC before it eats your family alive. They’re all cannibals, just like you, and they’ll turn on you as fast as they turned on Andrew Sandlin.
Thank you.
Mr. Mahaffey,
I will only address two of your concerns:
First, however, please note this: You are correct about your use of the words “it seems”; this was my mistake; I misquoted and misrepresented you; and I apologize. Please forgive me but please know that I did not intend this; it was an error on my part.
Why I call you a liar:
That is how normal people communicate, regardless of their religious convictions. You, however, shot onto the blog — pushy, bossy, and arrogant — making a series of statements composed of half-truths and false impressions, which you used to arrive at a wrong conclusion. You did this because you are not interested in the truth; you are interested in winning at any cost, including telling a few lies or disgracing the gospel. This makes you a liar, a deceiver.
Witness your article and your defense of it. Everyone who read the article understood your conclusion, the difference between you and normal people is that normal people are not so stupid as to believe that your conclusion removed your article’s substance, which is the argument you’re trying to make now. Here’s what you did: you wrote X number of glowing pages on the biblical merits of illegal activity, and one or two paragraphs on why you can’t break the law. Great move. Now you’re covered. Now you can argue that your article opposes marijuana. But your argument is a lie because as I said, I live in the real world where real words have real meaning, and I know the net effect that your arguments would have on anyone between the ages of 14–25, who had a pre-disposition (think depravity and peer pressure) to “smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot” because “Everybody must get stoned.” You deceive yourself that a caveat at the end frees you to call it an anti-dope article; your headline was the article.
Here are more lies that define your character: You deceive yourself with the claim that you never directly distributed your rag to Veritas students, as if sending it to the students of CWSC exonerates you. Look at the photographs of the children attending CWSC and tell me if your claim has merit. You deceive yourself by saying you don’t know if THE drug dealer at NSA and Logos School read it, even though you know it received broad circulation at NSA. You know he read it; you probably sent him a copy. You deceive yourself that you submitted your rag to the elders — including Sister Booth — because this only indicts them worse than anything I wrote. At this point it doesn’t matter if Booth was founder, headmaster, board member, instructor, pastor, or mother superior of Veritas — he was running the show and he didn’t care that you sent it to impressionable students. He was running the show and he let you in all your arrogance instruct children. You claim you didn’t send it to Veritas students. Big deal. Every other student you could access received a copy. Frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t send it to Veritas (and I don’t believe that you didn’t). At least you would have been consistent. You deceive yourself but you don’t deceive me. You don’t realize that I’m not playing your game. These are nothing more than a technical points at the expense of the truth. Circumstances are much worse than my words conveyed and you’re too dishonest to admit it. You’d rather argue about technicalities that in the end torpedo your case.
My point in calling attention to the article was to provide more evidence of the CREC’s bankrupt culture, and when I write another post to reflect your comments, I intend to explain why I believed Booth was the headmaster and I will gladly correct that minor error to point out that he was pastor of the church, founder of the school, board member of the school, and teacher at the school, and that he read the piece along with the rest of the elders, including the man you claim was headmaster of the school, and approved you sending it to students while he let you teach at that the school. At that point will it matter if it was a school newsletter or a student newsletter? Will it matter if he was headmaster, board member, or pastor? You’re so blinded by your deceit that you can’t even see this.
Please read my essay on dougsuppositionalism. It’s a perfect illustration of the dynamic at work here. You would rather lose the gospel by winning a debate where you don’t even have the moral high ground (by the way, this is not a debate). An honest and decent man would have commented something along these lines:
“As the author of that article I would like to make a couple of factual corrections and some comments. First, Randy Booth was not the headmaster, but I can see how someone could make that mistake. He founded the school, he sat on the board, he taught there, and he was pastor of the church that oversaw the school — without him the school would not exist; but he was not the headmaster. Second, The Squire was not a school newsletter, though I can see how someone could make that mistake. I taught at the school and we specifically targeted students for our audience. Moreover, the elders of the church who run the school approved the piece before we sent it to our student audience, so that point is really moot. We wanted it in the hands of students.
“But those technical errors pale in significance to my error in writing the piece. In hindsight I see that it was an irresponsible rant that emphasized all the wrong things in the wrong way to the wrong audience, and if I could make it disappear I would. I regret writing it and I regret that it affected my friends in harmful ways that I never intended. There is no defense for a Christian man to write such misleading material and I will not defend it. I sincerely apologize for it and I sincerely ask you to post this comment with the hope that it may help undo some of the damage I have done.”
Why I call you a monkey boy:
I am surprised that you have not figured out why I call you and your fellow clones “monkey boys.” Think. It’s insulting, isn’t it? It’s demeaning, isn’t it? It’s offensive, isn’t it? And it’s deliberate, isn’t it? Of course it is; it’s all these things and more. But it is the Fearless Leader’s tactic applied to his mindless disciples and you don’t see it. He has been calling people names for years — and monkey boys such as you approve of his reprehensible behavior — you enable him. You are an ordained officer in a confederation of cults that accepts this kind of behavior. I’m surprised that you don’t like it. I’m surprised that you don’t prefer I call you a mean-spirited name. I thought it was a godly use of abusive satire. I thought it was biblical to label an entire class of people with offensive names, such as intolerista or bapterian. (Please notice, however, that I only apply it to monkey boys and not believers or unbelievers.) You have tacitly adopted an apologetic of ridicule — live with it. You stand behind the Fearless Leader and encourage his iniquity — live with it. You think you can reform the Church with name calling — live with it. You embrace a theology of sin, iniquity, and deceit — live with it. You’re a monkey boy.
Sean, you’re not stupid. You should be able to see these things without me giving you a paint-by-numbers kit. But given the pattern that has developed, I suspect you want to argue about it. As noted, you would rather score a few debate points than be honest. This is sad, but it’s true. Look at the big picture. Consider the end of your conversation. God forbid, but if you have children, think of what you’re teaching them. They will be twice as arrogant as you; twice as argumentative as you; twice as dishonest as you; and twice as defiant as you. They will be two times the sons of hell and it will be too late for you to correct them because you taught them rebellion with every breathing act of yours. (BTW: I know that you have heard this from others.)
Your response to seeing your sinful article on the web should have been repentance in sackcloth and ashes. And since you’re grown up, you should have examined why your foolish elders sanctioned your reckless writing and let you send it to the four corners of the Earth. If they blew this no-brainer, then what else have they blindly sanctioned in your life that is leading to destruction? How many other lives have their irresponsible decisions affected for the worse?
These are the questions you should debate in your own mind. I fear, however, that you don’t have the ability to be honest with yourself. You’re too well trained in shading things to your favor. It’s all a rhetorical debate for you. But as I said, I’m not debating you and this is not about winning or losing. It’s about the gospel; you have disgraced it and you continue to disgrace it. Please repent.
Mr. Mahaffey,
As I have told you, this is not an argument; it’s not about winning or losing; it’s not about swallowing camels to concede technical points; and it’s not about you telling me what to do. I indicated that I intend to write a new post that reflects your testimony, and if you had the same ability to think as blow, you would realize that you don’t want any more attention called to your irresponsible screed because the things you want changed damage your position beyond remedy.
Please reread my last comment to you, especially the part about how you should have entered this scene.
Regarding my knowledge that others have bore similar witness to you, the comment stands and you know it.
Now I have no more time for your bellyaching. Please go away unless you want to participate in an honest exchange.
Thank you.
Post a Comment