Prince Blog

When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. — Proverbs 16:7

No line establishes Douglas Wilson’s worldview better than the one he wrested from Cotton Mather, who (may have) wrote, “Numquam bella piis, numquam certamina desunt” (Magnalia Christi Americana), which means, “For the faithful, wars shall never cease.” He uses this motto for New Saint Andrews College’s epigraph or, put another way, it is the foundation for the indoctrination that takes place at NSA. War defines his faith just as it animates his person. It is his essence. We see this in NSA’s maxim and we see it in the name of his blog, which you shouldn’t take for granted. Would a true minister of the gospel really name his blog after Prince Gog of the land of Magog?

Think about it. His blog is the familiar medium he uses to communicate with his disciples and he named it to rhyme with the OT’s prince of the Northern hordes that lived to persecute and harass God’s people. I’m sure he thinks it cute and clever. But suddenly it’s not so clever when you consider the fruit of Wilson’s ministry, which he consciously defined by persecuting and harassing God’s people. Indeed, he could have named it “Blogom and Blogmorrah” or “Blogylon” or “Moab is My Blogspot” or “Iscariot’s Place” or . . . you get the picture. He’s a blogolater — a blogomite. This is one reason I call him Beelzeblog; he wants his ministry marked by the names of demonic oppressors in Scripture and I am happy to oblige. But the point is that his soul loves violence; he’s a war child, which leads to the next point.

Green Baggineses has had an interesting thread addressing Scripture’s teaching on the roll of women in the deaconate and how this may affect the PCA. Naturally Douglas Wilson — Beelzeblog, Nimblog, Sanblogit, Alexander the bloggersmith — stated his opinion, which he offered ex cathedra for the reading world to marvel:

Douglas Wilson said. . . . .

One additional comment. Although I believe that a biblical polity permits women to hold the distinct office of widow/deaconness, I also believe that the pressing threat of feminism means that we should forbear exercising that option for the time being until we have defeated egalitarianism in the Church — much like how the Reformers granted that the laying on of hands was biblical, but because so much superstition had gotten attached to it, they skipped it for a while.

He affirms that the Bible reveals “the distinct office of widow/deaconness” (don’t miss the word “widow,” it’s an escape hatch; so is “a biblical polity”) but he repudiates the office “until we have defeated egalitarianism in the Church.” Follow the argument:

• Scripture authorizes the distinct office of deaconess for women to hold.


• Beelzeblog believes that feminism and egalitarianism pose a “pressing threat” to the Church.


• Therefore, the Church must not obey Scripture or honor women by allowing women to hold their distinct office.

Marvelous. Prince Blog believes that his opinion, which is grounded in mere imagination or total madness, overrides Scripture to the point that he can abolish a biblically prescribed office (at least an office he believes the Bible prescribes; the point of this essay is not the role of women in the deaconate) until everyone agrees with him and sees the world through his eyes. In short, the primacy of church government resides in him and his position leaves no room for any authority to challenge him — including Scripture.

Test the argument: Scripture authorizes the office of elder and permits only men to hold it, but since pastoral tyranny represents such a huge threat to the Church we should prohibit men from holding the office or we should refrain from recognizing it until we vanquish pastoral abuse in the Church, as demonstrated by such thugs as Wilson. Makes perfect sense. In fact, we can push the argument further. The Bible teaches justification by faith alone, but since certain men who hold this truth constitute a threat to the Church (think of the regulars on GB), pastors should forbear practicing this doctrine until the Federal Vision has squelched the menace.

In fact, the Fearless Leader’s argument is so absurd that even James Jordan called him on it, stating, “And, if you want to fight feminism, you need to start honoring women and stop treating the church as a boy’s club.” (How ironic that this comment fell from the lips of the most spoiled brat in the boy’s club.) Better yet, a woman caught the Great Protector’s inconsistency and called him on it:

Mary Kathryn said,

BTW, regarding Wilson’s post — if someone really believes that Scripture allows for women to be deaconesses, and that God has both equipped and called some women to do such work, then I think he would be remiss to purposely deny those women the opportunity to perform the work God has given them to do, regardless of the noble ambition to protect the gospel. I believe the gospel can well defend itself. Such hesitations are cowardly, IMO.

Douglas Wilson said,

Mary Kathryn, cowardice is one possible explanation. There are others, pastoral concerns among them — a man who believes we cannot fight all battles at once is not the same as a man who would run from any battle.

Mary Kathryn said,

Doug — I think it’s unfortunate that a person with such convictions would view the situation as a battle. (And a person may be a coward in one situation and not in another.) The opportunity to offer expanded service to a fellow-believer is a wonderful thing. I think, frankly, that we have women in the PCA who have been deprived of service for so many generations that they are now incapable of assuming such a role, even if it were offered them. A man who embraced such an opportunity would be noble indeed. Although I remain undecided on a woman’s role as a deacon/ess, I do think that Christian men in general may have a sharp comeuppance at the judgment, when they discover the things they have denied to their sisters, all out of fear.

This would have stung if Wilson had a conscience; but it didn’t because he doesn’t. Nevertheless, you should take note whenever a woman corrects Dougzilla on a hill he identified as a field of battle; it’s always pure poetry: “Was it not a woman who cast a piece of a millstone on him from the wall?” (2 Sam. 11:21.) And in this exchange Mary Kathryn sees the inherent beauty of serving God; the Fearless Leader sees a field of battle. A servant of God desires to serve; a professed servant longs to fight. Scripture frames Mary Kathryn’s worldview; enemies — and the need to wage war against them — frames Prince Blog’s. The two could not be farther apart. And the terrible irony is that Mary Kathryn and her worldview are the real enemies against whom the Great Protector has declared war in order to defend the Church from . . . well . . . from the Mary Kathryns in the Church, however that works.

Now consider the Fearless Leader’s need for war from another angle. According to his interview with the Moscow–Pullman Daily News, Wilson said he co-wrote (plagiarized) the book Southern Slavery As It Was “to defend the Bible as a whole.” He said, “I did know I was defending an unpopular issue . . . I resolved a long time ago that I would not be ashamed of anything in the Bible.” This is an incredible statement when you note that SSAIW defends the Southern institution of chattel slavery and its subsidiary industry of manstealing, which the Bible condemns as a capital crime. And since Wilson was not ashamed to defend an institution anathematized by Scripture and he was no less ashamed to assert that the Bible agreed with him, a civil war erupted on the Palouse where the enemies he cultivated (he calls them “intoleristas”) and the damage he wrought to the gospel remain to this day.

So in the case of deaconesses, Wilson repudiates Scripture in order to facilitate his war against feminists and egalitarians, and in the case of slavery he repudiates Scripture in order to declare war on mankind in general and the Palouse in particular. In both cases, he turns Holy Writ on its head; both instances torture reason; both positions oppress specific classes of the human race; both cases deliberately provoke, antagonize, and incite hostility; both instances place the Fearless Leader in front of an imaginary army to fight enemies of his own making; and both positions originate in the brain of one who identifies himself with Prince Gog of the land of Magog. “Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Rev. 13:4.)

You now have a glimpse into the mind of Douglas Wilson. He has no sense of reality other than what he fabricates to prosecute his ceaseless wars, which for him define his faithfulness to a god of his fantasies — a god revealed in a Bible that means so little to him that he dismisses it out of hand or twists it beyond recognition so that he may continue his fight against his never-ending parade of enemies.

Thank you.