Anonymity Excursus: The Kult Police State Part 1

This post is the first installment in a series of essays that consider Douglas Wilson’s claim that the Christ Church, Moscow, is not a well-organized syndicate of thugs that masquerades as a Christian church in order to advance its leader’s geopolitical-ecclesiastical agenda.

Douglas Wilson writes,

He wants to defend his anonymity by means of yet another slander — which is that we here in Moscow “haff our vays” of dealing with opponents, with a secret police and everything. Disagree with Wilson, and get a visit from jackbooted deacons in the middle of the night! (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)

First, I want to note that I never made this claim. Wilson is overstating my contention that he has a reputation for retaliating against those who publicly criticize him, and I would like to guess that he distorted my position because he’s interested in honest discourse, but I’m not that stupid.

Second, for this series’ sake I ask you to concede that Wilson has essentially accused me of accusing Christ Church, Moscow, of being a totalitarian state ruled by a ruthless autocrat who exacts vengeance against his critics.

Third, let’s run with it and see if his claim passes the smell test. Let’s take a basic definition of totalitarianism and compare it to the documented facts in Christ Church history. Accordingly,

Totalitarianism is a concept used in political science that describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private sectors. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. (Wikipedia)

I propose that we use this definition as a litmus test to determine if Christ Church, Moscow, is a normal church by biblical standards or if it fits the profile of a totalitarian state. Therefore, let’s see if Christ Church as a religious organization has the ecclesiastical equivalent of (1) Secret Police, (2) Propaganda Disseminated Through the State-Controlled Mass Media, (3) Personality Cult (this should be the most difficult to establish), (4) Regulation and Restriction of Free Discussion and Criticism, (5) Single-Party State, (6) Mass Surveillance, and (7) Widespread Use of Terror Tactics. Today we shall consider secret police. You be the judge:

SECRET POLICE
While most members of most Christian churches live to glorify God, Christ Church, Moscow, is much different. To be sure, the one priority that all members of the Kult share in common is the duty to protect their Fearless Leader and his interests, and in this respect all loyal members of the Kult operate as secret police against one another, gathering information for the Fearless Leader.

And Wilson is not beyond gathering information himself. For example, he admitted in another forum that, yes, he had interrogated the five-year-old daughter of a long-time Kult member to see if her father had called Christ Church a cult. Wilson questioned the child alone, with no one else present in the room, against the father’s direct instruction. In fact, the father said, “Douglas Wilson, you are in darkness. The light of God is not in you. You are the leader of a cult and I resign my household’s membership from Christ Church. Now please leave my family alone; we want nothing to do with you.” Knowing Wilson’s thought process, he took this as an invitation to interrogate the little daughter and if she confirmed that daddy called Christ Church a cult, then Wilson could trump up ecclesiastical charges of child abuse against the father. And quite frankly, whatever else is true, any pastor that would question a five-year old to obtain this kind of information only proves by his behavior that he fronts a cult.

But we want to consider the police state of the Kult, so let me share a few eyewitness accounts with you that I’ve picked up over the years. For example, my former neighbor, who is now a former member of the Kult, told me that when he was in Christ Church he restricted certain people from calling him on the telephone at home for fear that one of his children might answer and take a message. He feared that if a person called whom the Kult had identified as an “enemy,” then the possibility existed that one of his children could unwittingly let the name slip while they were playing with other Kult children, which would spell the end of him and his family forever in the Kult. He knew that the other children would notify their parents who would immediately contact the Fearless Leader, who would begin preparations for their public execution.

Another friend of mine, who is also a former member of the Kult, told me that after he had accepted a lateral promotion within the ACCS network of schools, Douglas Wilson sat down with him and his wife to tell him that, since he had accepted a position of leadership, he should not be seen speaking with enemies of the Kult in any context. The Fearless Leader then rattled off a list of persons that he expected this man to shun in public — starting with the Kult’s version of Emmanuel Goldstein — as an expression of his loyalty and he closed his exhortation by saying, “People are watching you.”

I realize that I am not providing documentation for these stories, but that’s okay. We have plenty of documentation below and lots more in the next few installments. The important point that you need to grasp is the climate of fear that pervades the Kult. For example, another friend of mine, who like the others is a former member of the Kult, has said that life in the Kult felt like living in Nazi Germany where you could not confide in anyone for fear that they would act as Thought Police and betray you to the Fearless Leader. This man lost his job at Canon Press during one of the Great Protector’s purges: Douglas Wilson saw him show kindness to an enemy of the Kult in public.[1] One week later he was gone.

Perhaps the best example that proves the Fearless Leader encourages members of the Kult to secretly police one another is the documented instance where Wilson approved of one member of the Kult tape recording a telephone conversation with another member of the Kult. Wilson admitted this in an email to the Kult member whom he had surveilled:

Fourth, Ethan told me after the fact that he had recorded his phone conversation with you, which I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do. Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation, I felt free to listen to it. If he had not done so, I would not have listened to it — a standard which you apparently do not share. The line you took in our phone conversation was mystifying to me at the time, but the fact that your companion [Dr. Atwood’s son, Ethan] was listening in unbeknownst to me makes more sense of the situation. The deceptiveness involved is revealing to me. (dougsplotch)

Wilson’s admissions here are disturbing enough, but first you have to notice how he distances himself from the espionage, writing, “I had not asked him to do, and did not know that he was going to do.”[2] He’s implying that he had nothing to do with instigating the surreptitious act, but then he threw his disclaimer out the window the moment he admitted he listened to the tape: “I felt free to listen.” And why did he feel free? Well, he heard it on the tape: “Because he told you that someone was potentially listening at the start of the conversation.” It makes perfect sense. He listened to the tape and heard his spy state that someone was potentially listening, which gave the Fearless Leader license to actually listen. But you can’t miss this point: After Wilson had one Kult member secretly tape record another Kult member on the telephone, he immediately turned around and accused the person whom he had just spied on of “deceptiveness.”

This just kills me. Wilson relied on all manner of deception to accomplish the deed when he encouraged one member to entrap another and then he put his hand with the treachery by listening to the tape. Despite these facts he accused the member of his congregation that he betrayed of “deceptiveness.” Amazing. But the point stands: members of the Kult tape record one another to gather intelligence for the Fearless Leader and he documented this totalitarian fact in an email.

I have one last example for your consideration but first let me remind you that in Orwell’s 1984 the story reached its climax when the Party successfully reeducated lead character Winston Smith to betray his lover, Julia, insuring that Winston would give all of his love and loyalty to Big Brother while he accepted the Party’s version of reality. [3]

Nancy Wilson writes:

But what about when the husband is in sin? This is a very important issue. What if the husband has adopted a wrong attitude and is heading in the wrong direction? Is a wife obligated to go along? It all depends. I have often been saddened that we don’t see more Abigails in the church today. She was not afraid to call her husband a fool and to make arrangements behind his back without his permission. . . . If a man is acting foolishly, a woman is foolish to go along quietly. . . But there are times when a godly wife should beseech her husband not to act in a foolish manner. It may involve doctrine. Perhaps she is alarmed that he is being attracted to heretical ideas, whether it is “openness theology” or Roman Catholicism. She should speak to him respectfully about this, but letting him know she cannot follow him there. If she belongs to a godly church, her elders would support her in this. Perhaps he is plotting to create some kind of stink in the church. Abigail would not stand for it. A good Christian wife should go to the elders and ask them how she can be a good church member and a good wife at the same time. She should not simply stand by, hoping that her husband will do the right thing. Nor should she just accept anything her husband does as though he is infallible. If a husband is bad-mouthing his elders, his pastor, or his friends, a godly woman should refuse to go along. She should speak to him privately first, but if he is not receptive, she should go to her pastor or elders and seek their advice. . . . A wife is to be a helper to her husband not a blind follower, and this sometimes includes going past him to get help. God blessed Abigail when she did this. In her case it was abundantly clear what was necessary. In other cases it might require pastoral oversight. But obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute. . . . (Nancy Wilson, “Submission,” Credenda Agenda, Volume 15 Number 3)[4]

I’m not sure that you have to read between the lines on this one; the implication is there for everyone to see: “obedience and submission to a mere man is never absolute” because obedience and submission to the Kult is absolute. The Kult’s authority supersedes a husband’s authority, especially in matters of conscience. Like Julia in 1984, you must betray him. As far as the Kult is concerned, Wilson’s intelligence-gathering network creeps all the way into the bedroom. They expect you to report everything.[5]

Now, even if you set aside my handful of stories that I did not document and only considered the ramifications of the two documented accounts I presented, do you believe that they are representative of everyday life in a biblical church, or do they resemble life in a police state? Is it normal for pastors to eavesdrop on their congregation and is it normal for members of churches to tape record their conversations so they can hand the tape to the pastor, or does this look more like the work of secret police operating in a totalitarian state? Or how about the husbands and wives — do pastors normally instruct the wives of their congregation to report on their husbands? What kind of person thinks in these categories? What kind of man obligates the women of his church to submit to him as opposed to their husbands? Can you imagine being afraid to speak your conscience to your spouse about the church government for fear that she might roll on you? Is this normal behavior in Christian churches or is this Orwellian? Do you think Wilson’s conduct and his expectations cater to an environment of love for God and love for the brethren, or do you think it fosters fear and suspicion?

Personally, I think it’s sick across the board; there is no moral justification for this kind of sweeping invasion of privacy. But for other folks it’s just another day in Christ Church, Moscow.

Whatever you may think, however, do not forget this: You must tell the Fearless Leader all your secrets because

BIG DOUGER IS WATCHING YOU.

Thank you.

---

[1] It’s critical to note that these so-called “enemies” are persons identified by the Fearless Leader as enemies because they publicly criticized him. It’s even more critical to note that most of these enemies are devout evangelical Christians.

[2] It really does not matter if Wilson asked him to do it. The fact remains that he did not dissuade the young man from taping the conversation and by participating in the act he approved it. This is more evidence that Douglas Wilson corrupts those under his influence. Moreover, the message Wilson sent to his loyalists by approving of this behavior was loud and clear: Tape recording one another is acceptable conduct in the Kult.

[3] As I reflected on this post, it occurred to me that the similarities between Christ Church’s culture of oppression and Orwell’s 1984 are staggering. But the one similarity that someone needs to develop is the comparison between Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate and the Kult’s imprecatory prayer ritual. It appears that the Fearless Leader’s ultimate goal with his daily imprecations is to sear the names of Kult enemies on Kult members’ brains so that they understand the importance of hating these human beings in public. Along these lines, I had an extended comment exchange with a member of the Kult last week where I noted a chapter called “The Winds of Hate,” in a book titled On Killing, where the author documents the psychological devastation caused by cultures driven by hate. Hate damages the hateful and the hated — but especially the hateful. Can you imagine the injury one suffers when they close their eyes in prayer to beseech the God of all mercy to inflict physical pain on another human being simply because they criticized Wilson in public? These people are really twisted.

[4] Rosemary Huskey’s exchange with Wilson on Vision 20/20 says it all; she is brilliant. But the important point you need to note is that Wilson initially denied that the Kult teaches this standard, writing:

First, Rose simply made up the stuff about making a stink “about the church,” and questioning “decisions of church leadership.” That was not in the column at all. Perhaps Rose has taken a course in research study methods from Quinlan and Ramsey. Oops. I really am trying to live up to certain exacting scholarship standards I just found out about recently — make that Rinlan and Quamsey.

These last two sentences are stabs at the two University of Idaho historians who put the lie to Southern Slavery As It Was. They’re the same men who refused to debate the subject with Wilson. I’m sure it was because of his kindness.

[5] Nancy Wilson’s Credenda column is especially ironic in light of the two emails written by A Christ Church Wife. This godly woman — this Abigail — understood that her husband was fallible and that her pastor was evil. She recognized that a cult leader had blinded her husband’s eyes and was holding her family hostage. She, however, had no recourse. She could not go to her elders and she could not go to her husband.