Anonymity Part IX: “A Christ Church Wife”
Today I want you to consider Douglas Wilson’s claims vis-à-vis Christ Church, Moscow, from another point of view — that of a member in good standing. Before we get there, here is the Fearless Leader’s quote for your consideration:
So here is the summary. I believe that men like Mark T lie as as [sic] fast as a dog can trot. And when I say “lie,” I mean that in the old-fashioned sense that would get you into a fight in a bar. 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! That’s why he has to attack without any accountability for himself. We, by our evil, have forced him to it. Now I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more. But is anonymity really necessary when what would happen is that the man’s pastor (assuming with a long shot that he has one) would get a letter? (“Ninth Commandment Issues”; emphasis original)
It’s possible that at some level Wilson actually believes that I lie as fast as a dog can trot, but as I asked a few days ago, Where’s the proof? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the documentation that contradicts anything here? There is no proof; there is no evidence; there are no documents to contradict anything here or else he would have produced it faster than a greyhound chasing a hare at the track. So they have resorted to abusive ad hominem arguments against a complete stranger — a ghost, a phantom — an invisible entity that uploads documents to the web for the world to see. Despite this fact, I am an anonymous accuser. I’m a slanderer. I’m a liar. Not only am I a liar, I’m an old-fashioned liar. My lies are so egregious that they would get me into a bar fight, whatever that means. But for all his vivid rhetoric, the Fearless Leader has yet to substantiate one accusation against me. Honestly, if you’re going to call a man a liar, it behooves you to support your claim. To be sure, even though I don’t frequent saloons I’d really appreciate knowing where I lied. A guy never knows when he might find himself in a watering hole and it would be good to know what not say. But they won’t even afford me this courtesy that could save my life some day. Perhaps it’s one of those imprecatory things: “Kill him, God, and his documents too.”
And there’s an irony here that they don’t see. I have maintained that Wilson and his disciples are cruel, malevolent, and deceitful people, and they have replied to me with cruel, malevolent, and deceitful answers. Well, maybe irony isn’t the word. But the point of today’s post is to let you read the testimony of an “anonymous accuser” whom Douglas Wilson validated as a legitimate witness.
On February 9, 2005, a woman who identified herself as “A Christ Church Wife” appeared on the local listserv Vision 20/20 to offer her testimony of life inside the Kult. She never revealed her name and to this day I am not aware of anyone who met her. Her two posts speak for themselves — straight from the heart — and her testimony was compelling for two reasons: First, her evangelical faith and her love for God were obvious; you could see it in every word she wrote. Second, she confirmed the community’s worst fears about life inside the Kult. And you have to admit that outsiders would be a little curious about the inner workings of the Kult, especially after the Southern slavery scandal of 2003–04 when Wilson asserted his presence in the community with the same gusto that he has shown during the FV controversy. Prior to the slavery scandal, Wilson was just an arrogant blowhard who pronounced his opinions ex cathedra on the list. After the slavery scandal, the local population was genuinely curious about what kind of people would sit under Wilson’s toxic indoctrination, which is a reasonable curiosity when you think about it. What kind of person would attend a church where the pastor was so delusional that he wrote a book championing the cause of the antebellum slave owners? The answer to this question seemed evident by the way Wilson’s disciples crowded Vision 20/20 with nut-job posts. And I emphasize the words “nut job.” They really got behind slavery and if you check the archives from that time, you’ll see the exact same phenomenon taking place there that happens every time someone challenges the Fearless Leader’s character on a blog — flying monkeys everywhere — which piqued the community’s curiosity even more: “Why are his disciples so rabid?” It’s safe to say that A Christ Church Wife confirmed what everyone suspected about the Kult.
A second thing you need to know is that after A Christ Church Wife thanked the community listserv, someone named “Christian Burns” and his “wife” answered her with counsel that essential said, “Submit to your husband and drink the Kool-Aid.” I will not post their emails (you can read them here and here) because the important thing is that A Christ Church Wife was much too savvy to let them manipulate her.
Three other housekeeping issues: First, she references the word “kirkers,” which is a term coined by members of the Kult to identify themselves in the community; it’s a play off the Kirk. Second, you’ll notice that she thanked Daily News columnist Vera White for withstanding Wilson; you can read one of Vera’s columns from the slavery scandal here. Third, we inserted the hyperlinks in her email for your assistance:
----- Original Message -----
From: ChristChurch Wife
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Message from a Christ Church Wife
Dear Visionaries,
I am a Christ Church wife. Of the many of things I could write, I decided in the end that what I’m about to write is the most important. I realize there’s no reason why you should trust an anonymous posting like mine but it’s my hope that somehow you’ll decide to read it anyway.
It’s amazing how God has been so merciful to Christ Church/Trinity members through this forum. Many of you have been such a comfort to me and you don’t even know it. It’s hard to belong to a church whose pastor treats people the way Doug Wilson does, especially those who oppose him publicly. No, it’s not hard, I take that back. It’s horrible. It’s become a nightmare. It’s shame and outrage and grief that no amount of tears can wash away. Part of me wants to write a thousand more words but I won’t waste your time. Why? Because of the glaring question that logically follows: “Then why don’t you leave that church?” I’m working on it as hard as I can. Some day I will get out but when I leave I refuse to go alone. I will be taking my family with me. I will not allow my marriage to be destroyed or my children split apart in the process. Slowly and consistently my husband has begun to heed the words I speak to him regarding Christ Church. The day is coming when his eyes will be fully open and his faith will lead the way. That is the day we’ll leave. I believe that with all my heart. It’s coming. But even then, the road to recovery will be long. That’s okay. I’m not deceived. My marriage will survive and we’ll be fine again someday. Nobody said that only husbands are responsible to protect their families. Wives are called to do the same. Mine is also a rescue and recovery mission and you, on this forum, have been an incredible blessing in this long, difficult process.
My reason for posting today is because I want to say thank you. With all my heart I thank you for how you do your best to help open the eyes of Christ Church/Trinity people. (I dislike that word “Kirkers.”) Thank you for the insight and careful observations you’ve brought to issue after issue concerning Christ Church. I especially appreciate how determined you are in your resolve to speak forth. Thank you for your example of courage, for exposing the tactics of Doug Wilson and refuting them. For remaining vigilant no matter how Christ Church leaders respond to you. Thank you for the humorous statements that have literally made my day so many times. It’s amazing how much strength one can get from humor. Thank you for all the personal time you’ve given in posting. And most of all, thank you for your compassion for Christ Church wives and children and even our husbands that has comforted me time and time again. It’s been overwhelming.
I’ve learned so much about people from Vision 2020. Your service to the Palouse is unquestionable. People who don’t even know me care about me and in their own way have tried to help me. My mind has been stretched. My world has perspectives it never had before. I’ve gained more understanding and compassion for others in ways that have made me a far better person. I don’t have to agree with everything written on a post to be able to say thank you for writing it. I see in you a true desire to make the Palouse a better place to live. I see individuals trying and one by one it’s working. Thank you. Thank you with all my heart for what you’ve done for me as a person and Christian. If I may, I would like to say a special thanks to Tom Hansen for his “Not on the Palouse” site. God only knows how many people have been spared the grief I’ve known because of it. For their lives sake, I thank you.
Because the Daily News, understandably, will not accept anonymous letters I’d also like to publicly thank Vera White for her brave column. She has withstood the vehemence of Wilson’s world for years and done it with remarkable grace. She never ceases to amaze me with her lion’s heart. Vera’s example of courage and integrity in journalism has inspired me more than she’ll ever know. Even if I don’t agree with every word she says, she’s my hero. Thank you, Vera. Thank you forever.
Thank you, Vision 2020, for allowing me to post this.
With deepest gratitude and respect,
A Christ Church wife
----- Original Message -----
From: ChristChurch Wife
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:12 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] thank you
Dear Visionaries,
The intent of my original posting was to thank Visionaries for their kind and helpful postings. I didn’t think I’d be writing again, but here I am. You have my deepest appreciation for your responses to my first letter. I wasn’t surprised or offended that some of you thought I was a phony. Anonymous postings beg for questions of authenticity.
I believe the Burns’ letter were written with the desire to help me although I was left bewildered by many of Mr. Burns’ conclusions. He wrote that he didn’t know Doug Wilson and that he’d never met him. Not meeting or knowing him in no way excludes him from knowledge or study of Wilson’s theology, though nothing he wrote was specific to Doug alone. If Mr. Burns is totally unacquainted with Doug then ignorance of the teaching, writings, and serrated edge ministry of Christ Church could leave him in shock upon perusal of it.
I have a few small suggestions you may want to consider, Mr. Burns. Fundamental to any aid for Christ Church members is a basic knowledge of Doug Wilson’s ways. It is why I find Vision 2020 so refreshing and in it’s unique way, healing. A clear understanding of Doug’s ideas and theology establishes a type of credibility that is impossible for those ignorant of it to possess. If you don’t know what cancer is, you certainly cannot treat it. Having said that, I understand that people do not have to walk through a valley of darkness to be able to minister to those who have. I believe presumption is a great temptation, though, for this kind of counselor. There is no replacement for walking a mile in someone’s shoe.
Presuming that someone left a church because they were “taking the bait of the enemy” is a drastic accusation at best. Assuming you knew their reasons for leaving is a sad thing. I admit that your conclusion of my state of heart and life would have left me shocked had I not witnessed for years the harshness that Christians inflict upon their brethren in the Lord. Unbelievers are not nearly as capable of hurting us as we are of hurting each other and your letter spoke loudly to that condition. Your thoughts indicted me of bitterness, potentially rotting from the inside out, and not submitting to my husband. All of those things are untrue. But your worst offense was the question, “Are you going outside your husbands covering and getting together with others to share your concerns for the church?” which was then followed by your command for me to, “Stop it.” Why did you bother asking the question?
Through your words you have made yourself judge, trial, and jury of my life. You have no authority biblical or otherwise to make such presumptions of me or anyone else. I fear, by your command, that you could be unsatisfied with the submission of your wife alone. You presume to command me?? Perhaps your scriptural interpretation of submission is increasing your appetite for power. If that is the case I urge you to beware.
Submission is not fairy dust that magically turns wrong decisions into eternal bliss for the family. Wrong decisions yield wrong results. They also reap pain and consequences that could have been avoided if husbands had only listened to and followed the wisdom of their “helpmeets.” God said it was not good for man to be alone. He needed help. My husband needs my help, Sir, whether you believe that or not. He needs my protection from a man who has blinded his eyes and I am fully qualified and capable of giving it to him, thank God. I will not allow our family to be swallowed up by the deception that comes from sincerely trusting in the arm of ecclesiastical flesh. Life is very complicated. It is very scary and hard. Husbands and wives need each others wisdom and love desperately in life. Thankfully, my husband is giving me a chance, a chance that used to be a huge part of our lives until we became Christ Church members. I intend to rescue my family in as prudent and peaceable way as I can. I will not allow you nor anyone else twist submission into a decree for silent tooth grinning while a monster is on the loose attacking anyone he pleases. Two are stronger than one and a three fold cord is not easily broken. It is not submission that “never fails,” it is love.
A Christ Church wife
I think she acquitted herself quite well, don’t you? More importantly, at least for this post, she opened her statement by affirming a point I have made repeatedly, though she said it much more eloquently, writing from the position of a hostage held by her captor:
It’s hard to belong to a church whose pastor treats people the way Doug Wilson does, especially those who oppose him publicly. No, it’s not hard, I take that back. It’s horrible. It’s become a nightmare. It’s shame and outrage and grief that no amount of tears can wash away. Part of me wants to write a thousand more words but I won’t waste your time. (emphasis added)
Does anyone really doubt that Wilson has a reputation in Moscow for harassing those who publicly oppose him? She certainly did not and I assure you that everyone who read her email on 2020 had an appropriate point of reference to understand exactly what she meant (she posted one year after Credenda Agenda hosted its so-called “history” conference that completely scandalized the Palouse). It is shame, outrage, and grief that no amount of tears can wash away.
Now let me return to the Fearless Leader’s words when he wrote, “I don’t fault anonymous critics in cultures where there are Gulags, racks, stakes, and more.” Of course, I never made this representation; this is Wilson’s distortion of my position. But that’s okay because it seems clear to me that A Christ Church Wife felt as though she lived in a world surrounded by “Gulags, racks, stakes, and more.” I could be wrong and I don’t want to overstate her position, but I wonder if the Fearless Leader — the only architect of the Kult’s culture of death — faults A Christ Church Wife for anything she wrote or if he faults her for writing anonymously. He built his concentration camp from the ground up and A Christ Church Wife lived behind his barbed-wire fence, witnessing all the malice that he showed to the community. Indeed, she is one more witness in a long line of witnesses who testified to his evil being. And for her sake and her family’s sake, I hope her so-called pastor never located her.
Thank you.
24 comments:
Just wondering your thoughts on the other side of internet anonymity, that being the unveiling of anonymous internet personalities. Hypothetically speaking (of course), do you believe it would be sinful for someone to reveal your identity against your wishes?
Mr. Gibbs,
Your question assumes circumstances that do not exist; this is a community effort and no one is in this loop that has not agreed to privilege. That said, if you do the math, I’m sure the Fearless Leader dispatched his IT goon squad, as he did with A Christ Church Wife, and they came up empty. I am also sure that he has pinned my identity on his Emmanuel Goldstein, or Snowball (same person), as he has done every other time in the past, including his fabricated soiled-condom report. It probably has something to do with the way he loves his enemies — he fabricates them out of thin air that he may destroy them.
But then you have another consideration — if I have not sinned, and thus far no one has demonstrated sin apart from the Fearless Leader’s relentless cry of “SLANDER!” then what’s with the obsession of identifying me? I put facts on the table with color commentary, which is a lot more than you can say for the Fearless Leader who puts falsehoods on the table with lots of embellished commentary. Moreover, he has advanced abusive ad hominem arguments against me without once considering the substance of my posts. And if he’ll abuse an invisible entity, how much more would he abuse a visible entity? So I wonder what drives people to ignore documented facts with the hope of participating in a group slaughter. Rather sick when you think about it.
But the answer to your question is that no one on the inside could roll without violating the Ninth Commandment.
“The simplest mistake in the world is to think that an act of human kindness, extended from one person to another, is capable of being translated to the larger scale of millions of people, with everything essential in that compassionate gesture remaining unaffected and unchanged.” (“Penalties for Do-Goodery”)
With this cynical remark, Doug Wilson dismisses the life and death of our Savior and the sacrifice and the glorious example of the Saints on countless succeeding generations. This gospel-denying sentiment in effect blows out the candle by which we are bound as Christians to hold aloft.
“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14–16)
I have been blessed to receive many acts of kindness from members of the Christ Church congregation, including members of Doug Wilson’s extended family. These experiences demonstrate that the infinite power, goodness, and mercy of God is present even in the darkest places. I hold up A Christ Church Wife in prayer along with all those who have suffered from the deceitful and wicked machinations of Doug Wilson. Their courage, which frankly cannot be fully comprehended unless one has seen it directly, and I have, should be a constant source of inspiration to those of us fortunate to be beyond his immediate grasp.
I do not underestimate the power of the sinful megalomania and grandiosity of Doug Wilson and his cohorts — but I am grounded in the belief that they can never extinguish the light of Christ in those people who humbly but steadfastly stand against them. I know that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.” (Matthew 6:8.) It will be a glorious day indeed when the congregation of Christ Church rises up and rejects the pseudo-ministry of Doug Wilson and his elders; and with peaceful hearts and abundant blessings return to their true Master.
Rose Huskey
Thanks, Rose, and for those of you seeing her name for the first time, please note that she is the Iron Rose of Moscow — she’s the real deal and you should peruse the archives of her blog. She has Wilson’s number better than anyone I’ve ever seen.
It was a hypothetical question, Mark. That means it assumes circumstances that do not exist. I was asking you to assume they existed. Whatever.
Mr. Gibbs,
I appreciate the hypothetical nature of your inquiry, and at one point my answer to you included various situations from Joshua and Rahab to the author of Primary Colors (whose name escapes me) to the French Résistance in the 1940s. But I believed it was important for the hypothesis to match the circumstances and to keep it short.
No hard feelings.
Eh, I've known plenty of reasonable people who don't deal in hypothetical questions. So fair enough. Not to be a bore, but can I try just one more hypothetical question on you? If not, hey, stick to your principles. But I'm curious.
If an unknown person hacked your blog, and through some clever maneuvering you found out who it was, and lo and behold, it was one of Wilson's goons, would you out that person? What if they made a personal plea to you to not do so?
Mr. Gibbs,
Thanks for the question and as far as I’m concerned you’ve not been a bore. And with the hope of not boring you, I must set your hypothetical question in context: You ask: If one of Wilson’s goons committed at least one felony, possibly two, and I discovered him by a simple police investigation (hacking is easy, and it’s even easier to get caught), would I “out” that person?
Unfortunately, Mr. Gibbs, your hypothetical scenario doesn’t flesh out. I believe that Google would prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law because he would have to violate Google’s server to hack my blog. Such a circumstance would be out of my control and I’m not sure to what extent Google would involve me in the investigation. But I am absolutely certain that Google would follow Amazon’s lead and make sure that every news media outlet in the world learned the felon’s name.
Now, given the last go around, I suspect that I did not answer your question to your satisfaction. I also suspect that you have an end game in mind. Perhaps you would do better to make your point than to try trapping me in a moral dilemma.
Alas, I'm no genius and had no endgame in mind. Had you answered my question the way I deviously wanted you to, I probably would have just said "Huh" and gone back to my homework or my tabloids. You win, Mark T. I guess. Although I don't know what kind of prizes you're going home with.
Since you're sporting enough (Just look at that avatar), let me try another question for you. I always tried this on Metzler and he never could nail down a solid answer: What would you like to see happen to Wilson, Christ Church, Moscow, etc.? What do you think Wilson's comeuppance should look like?
Mr. Gibbs,
Thanks for your questions:
1. “What would you like to see happen to Wilson, Christ Church, Moscow, etc.?”
In a perfect world I would like to see Wilson repent and be born again, and since everyone in the Kult follows his lead — whether good or bad — he could be an agent for revival such as Moscow has never seen.
2. “What do you think Wilson’s comeuppance should look like?”
I think that Wilson’s comeuppance, his retribution, should look exactly like what God has decreed, and nothing less.
The scary thing for him is that God is not mocked and men reap what they sow, and if we learn anything from such men as Pharaoh, Haman, Herod, the Pharisees, Diotrephes, etc., we learn the judge of all the earth shall do right.
Let me illustrate the point: when God sent Steven Sitler to the Kult to prey upon children unawares for 18 months, the punishment matched the crime — in spades. Wilson puts himself forward as an expert on all things culture-, family- and children-related and he holds the Kult forward as a vital covenant community. But God showed him that his covenant community is rotten to the core, starting with those families that raised their children on Wilson’s homeschool curriculum, such as the Sitlers who raised Steven on all things Wilson.
Do you see the poetry of it all? Sitler’s folks raised him on Wilson’s poisonous formula for childrearing and when he grew up and they sent him off to Wilson’s school, God unleashed him on the Kult. Don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that Wilson’s toxic doctrine spawns pedophiles. I believe it breeds lawlessness, and pedophilia is about as lawless as you can get.
I can think of no more severe temporal judgment from Heaven against a people than the sexual mutilation of its most harmless citizens because their leader refuses to humble himself. But since members of the Kult have aligned themselves with Wilson in all his sin, God saw fit to lower the boom hard and wide.
So back to your first question: “What would you like to see happen to Wilson, Christ Church, Moscow, etc.?” I would never have wished such an awful catastrophe as Steven Sitler on the Kult; I would have preferred repentance, as I still do. But God decreed calamity.
And back to your second question: “What do you think Wilson’s comeuppance should look like?” If Wilson was not blinded by self-love, he would see where this thing is going. Steven Sitler represents the fiercest judgment any community could endure and despite this Wilson pleaded with the judge to go easy on the kid that he may return to the community. Hello. He did this without ever notifying the members of the Kult of Sitler’s predations, which is about as much contempt that one man could ever show for any group of people, and he did this without ever consulting the members of the Kult beforehand. God decreed calamity and Wilson ASKED FOR MORE. If you do the math it won’t end well. In fact, I shudder to think what God shall hand the Fearless Leader on that terrible day. But in terms of comeuppance, it shall be just and true.
Given these facts, I’d like you to answer your own questions, since you’ve not shown your hand in this: “What would you like to see happen to Wilson, Christ Church, Moscow, etc.? What do you think Wilson’s comeuppance should look like?”
I appreciate the exchange, thanks.
Mr. Gibbs,
I will publish your comment on the condition you remove the name of the person that Wilson abused for the space of over a year while he refused to deal with one of his arguments. I have said time and again that I will not allow Wilson’s monkey boys to use this blog as a platform for his evil agenda. Until now you have been thoughtful and considerate and as I noted you played it close to the vest. But since I have documented virtually all my claims of abuse — pastoral and civil — I would hope that you could afford me this one small courtesy (Blogger does not allow me to edit comments).
Regarding Sitler, I neglected to point out the devastating quotation documented in the post “Destroy thou them O God” and I neglected to note that God sent two molesters to the Kult during that period. This is Wilson’s standard, not mine, and I don’t see anything about “a dozen guys knocking down the doors of small children,” as you claim.
Please, however, write back in with an edited note that we may engage. I will be very curious to pick your brain.
Thanks.
I'll be happy to remove the name. It's your blog, Jackson.
I'm not sure if the comment about Wilson's monkey boys was directed at me, but if it was, I have to wonder what it takes to be considered a "monkey boy." I'm not Aaron Rench, for Pete's sake. I'm a fairly regular voice of dissent on his blog (most recently about 12 hours ago) and have put a number of articles on my own blog related to Wilson and Credenda that ought to at least establish me as some kind of moderate voice. How does one become a monkey boy? Are you sure you're not one? You seem more interested in the man than I do. Ah, I jest, I jest. But let's not be hasty. Not everyone who has a nice word to say about Doug is a monkey boy (Shoot, Evan's got nice things to say about him, hasn't he?). Not everyone who opposes him is an "intolerista." Let's be fair.
Don't mind about my comment-in-waiting, actually. Please, dismiss it into cyberspace. Let me rephrase all of it down to this: Before I could say what kind of comeuppance Wilson deserved, I would want to know who was going to deliver said comeuppance. Ultimately, the Lord. Obviously. But let's not be glib. Who in Moscow is in the seat of power to judge Wilson? Who is fit to judge him? I think you (and everybody else) has remarked before that Wilson is under no one. That the Lord alone is likely to instrument the comeuppance, and not you or any judge or any jury, I have no advise to give to the Lord on the matter. I would ask Him to be gracious on Wilson, just as I would ask Him to be gracious on you or my own soul. So, then, who do you think ought to cut the switch off the tree in the back? Who ought to decide how many lashes?
It's thoughtful that your first desire is for him to repent, but I don't see that being worked out on this blog. This blog seems more centered around inciting indignation in his followers. I'm not coming down on you for it. It's just one man's opinion. I had asked about his comeuppance and you answered in terms of natural, spiritual consequence (Sitler, etc.) to poor teaching, and so forth. I don't think you were evading the question, I just think you might have gotten sidetracked. As for judgment, as for "Doug Wilson, you are found guilty of XY and Z and are thusly sentenced to fifty lashes..." who do you think ought to be doing this? If the Lord alone can do it, then why this big public blog?
Mr. Gibbs,
Thank you very much for graciously editing your comment pursuant to my request. You have done more in the last five minutes than any member of the Kult has ever done around here — and you are a member, aren’t you?
Regarding the term “monkey boy,” I pointed out to monkey boy Sean Mahaffey that I coined the term to apply to any of Wilson’s disciples who enable him in his sin. Here’s the argument: Wilson devised a theology called “serrated edge” whereby he licenses himself to carve into the dignity of other human beings — Christian and non-Christian alike — at will. I believe that to the extent anyone sits under his ministry at all, they are putting their hand with the wicked and I remind them of it by using his favorite device — name-calling. Arbitrary? Maybe. Sinful? Maybe. Deserved? Absolutely. It’s deserved because Wilson’s disciples appear to give no thought to the ramifications of his behavior and its effect on them or on others, just like monkey boys. They screech on command; they swing from vines on command; they throw monkey clumps on command; and they lie and deceive on command — all for the big gorilla himself. If I had never seen it I would never have believed it. But to the extent that they ape the Fearless Leader, they are monkey boys and I intend to remind them of it as often as I can.
So you claim that you’re a regular voice of dissent. I’ve not been to your blog but I seriously doubt that your dissent rises to the level of A Christ Church Wife, who identified Wilson’s sin and thanked the community for opposing him. I doubt that your dissent rises to the level of Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey, against whom Wilson sought disciplinary action at the UI. And I doubt your dissent rises to the level of countless other souls who spotted Wilson’s sin and asked him to repent, to their chagrin. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t give you an “’Atta boy” this time round. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re in it you’re part of the problem. If you tithe to it, you support a terrorist organization. If you pray imprecations against the brethren, you’re as evil as the others. If you try to hurt those who oppose Wilson by committing hateful actions against them or if you “fellowship” with those who do, then you are a cancer cell in a cancer-ridden body, malignant through and through.
Regarding “intolerista,” if you search the Fearless Leader’s blog, you’ll find a “scorecard” explaining how to identify an “intolerista.” I remember seeing it on 2020 and thinking, “He just labeled the majority of Moscow and most of the Palouse.” So I am being fair on that count. And as long as we’re on it, what kind of pastor keeps scorecards anyway? I’m sure it helps him love his neighbors. You never know when you might have to file a frivolous police report.
I didn’t mean to be terse there; I just wanted to get to the meat and potatoes of your comment.
Now, I think you and I agree on comeuppance. That’s why I included the word “retribution,” perhaps wrongly, this morning. In my mind “comeuppance” denotes something that might happen to an arrogant football team, such as the New England Patriots who got their comeuppance in the Super Bowl. They were talking trash on the field during the game, saying, “Hey, we might invite you to our victory party,” and they got their comeuppance.
I believe in Wilson’s case “comeuppance” is much too soft a term, and that’s why I hoped for repentance but deferred to God’s judgment — not man’s — and I never understood your inquiry in any other context. I cannot dole out punishment to him and I have no desire to punish him.
You write, “It’s thoughtful that your first desire is for him to repent, but I don’t see that being worked out on this blog. This blog seems more centered around inciting indignation in his followers.” Thank you for conceding that he has “followers”; now please read Acts 20:29, 30, and try to harmonize Paul with Doug. Moving along, the point of this blog is not to incite “his followers,” i.e. monkey boys; I could care less about them and wish they’d go away. A primary point of this blog has been to establish Wilson’s reptilian nature. Please see my post “Snakes Within the Covenant” and tell me if he isn’t a slithering snake by his own definition, whether or not he sheds skin.
And I really would like to see him repent, but as Morgan said, “I’m a realist not an idealist.” Look, pigheaded brutes seldom repent, which is why I cited Pharaoh, Haman, Herod, the Pharisees, Diotrephes, etc., this morning. Let’s be real here; Wilson is not interested in anything but himself and he has reinterpreted the Christian faith to conform to his ego, unless you interpret his self-centered narcissistic blowhardiness as humility and self-denial. It would take a revelation greater than Nebuchadnezzar’s dream or Paul’s Damascus Road to convert this man and I don’t see Daniel or any goads nearby. He is delusional (ask him about “the anointing”; it’ll kill you!). He has no point of reference that rational creatures can relate to other than his sense of greatness and domination. He has lived his whole life pursing his ambitions at everyone else’s expense. He created a pseudo-universe where, as you said, he’s under no one, which allows him to run to and fro seeking whom he may devour. He rolls over people whenever they do not submit to his decrees, such as the two beautiful families that managed Canon Press or the family that compiled the Cantus. He put them in the bread line because they disagreed with him on fundamental issues of biblical morality. He threw them under the bus, laughing at them before the congregation and spreading lies about them behind their backs. But it doesn’t end well for these men. Read Stalin’s daughter’s account of her father’s death and foresee the last days of the Fearless Leader. I hope he repents, but I hold out no hope. I am a realist.
I never intended to evade any of your questions and tried to answer them straight down the middle. If you read the quote from Wilson about citizens raping their own, then you must conclude that two child rapists during the same 3-year window constitute God’s judgment on the Kult, especially by Wilson’s standards.
Finally, you ask, “Who do you think ought to be doing this? If the Lord alone can do it, then why this big public blog?” If by “this” you mean “judgment” (it was the antecedent) then we are agreed. It is to God alone to judge Wilson. But don’t confuse “judgment” with “exposure.” This blog serves to expose the schismatic nature of the Federal Vision by focusing on the divisive behavior of its principal leaders who are all led around the nose by the Fearless Leader.
One thing I’ve learned in the last six months is that most people outside of Moscow had no idea of the level of corruption here. This is evident by the dozens of off-list comments I’ve received from leaders in the Church all over the country. They certainly don’t see “judgment” as you describe; they see hard-copy documentation of putrid decadence parading itself as holiness and reformation. They see the face of hypocrisy in its worst form — religious. And they see an egomaniac oppressing the saints of God. Frankly, most people are shocked. More importantly, I have received many off-list inquiries about various and sundry subjects related to the Fearless Leader, which leads me to believe that I have achieved (somewhat) at least one of my objectives.
The point here is that I do not sit in judgment of Wilson, and I’m sure that every post you could find where I pass judgment on him I could show you two more where I hold him to his own standards, which is constantly assumed. The point here is to expose him for his rank hypocrisy and his evil nature, unless you believe his act last week about loving his enemies squares with his handwritten police report, in which case maybe I am a slanderer.
So tell me, do you really attend the Kult? If so, can you please comment on A Christ Church Wife’s email?
Thanks.
Well, I'm not a member of Christ Church, but I and my wife are members of Trinity. I expect no pats on the back for this. No "Atta' boys." And while I've voiced my dissent, I am no A Christ Church Wife and so forth. I don't pray imprecatory prayers, though, and would rather other Christians didn't as well.
That said, I'm interested in whether you pray imprecatory prayers against Christ Church and Doug. I would like to assume that given Wilson and Christ Church are as important to you as they are that you are in regular prayer about the matter. Also, given that your first desire is for Doug to repent (which is noble, granted), do you pray that Doug and the elders of Christ Church would repent? This question raises another matter of importance relating to this blog and others like it. What is a fitting way to speak to the Lord about Wilson? When you pray to the Lord for Wilson, do you call him "Fearless Leader"? Do you pray, "Dear Lord, please give all those monkey boys new hearts?" Although, I think I might be more interested in whether you pray, "...and if you will not give them new hearts, strike them down." Again, I know so little about you that I don't want these questions to come off accusatorily. I'm just trying to provoke you to think on the matter.
What I'm also troubled by on this blog, and also with your remark that fellowship with friends of Wilson is wicked, is the lack of compassion towards members of Christ Church. While Christ was on the Cross, His prayer was, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do," not "Condemn them Father, for they ought to know what they're doing." Let's grant for a moment that you're right and that Wilson is the shrewd, manipulative mastermind that some people say he is. Should the people he has duped not be greatly pitied? If he is so powerfully manipulative, shouldn't the people being manipulated be pitied? Take for instance the people in the past few years that have gone to Christ Church, gotten burned and left the church. What kind of state were their souls in before they got burned and left?
When I read the posts on this blog, I'm not overwhelmed by your compassion or pity for all the people whose lives you believe are being ruined by Wilson- I only see compassion for the people whom you say Doug has ruined that have come to recognize Doug the way you do.
I think the serrated edge is silly, which is why I can't get on board with the tone and ethos you've adopted on this blog. Bless those who curse you, pray for them that spitefully use you. I'm going to guess that you believe you are doing this- trying to bless those that have cursed you, trying to expose the sin of the unrepentant so they can come around to Christ. But look at the method, friend! Your blog is shot through with the same vicious quality of the serrated edge that you oppose. I don't believe Wilson's serrated edge is doing Jesus Christ any favors, but I don't believe this blog is either. I don't believe that preaching the virtues of imprecatory prayer is helping further the Kingdom. I think it hurts the Kingdom. But this is an "attack blog," correct? A soft answer turns away wrath, brother. Christ Church members would do well to remember this when dealing with naysayers, as would you, don't you think?
One of the great problems with the serrated edge is that everybody believes that they have some special corner on its proper usage; that they're in some unique place wherein the serrated edge is necessary. That is the reason for the name calling, for the KKK-esque spelling of "the Kult"?
I won't belabor the matter of trying to figure out who you are. This doesn't matter so much to me. I've got to ask, though: Do you know who I am? Do you know my back story? I'm not some wide-eyed kid from Kentucky who came here last year. Pot smoking scandal? I was there. Morton street card thing? I was there. (And sheesh, the stories that circulate about either of these matters, from both sides of the Kirk divide, are always shot through with amazing factual errors like you wouldn't believe.) Do you know who my parents are? Know what happened to them? Perhaps you do, though. I don't want to come down on you. Maybe you just didn't know what I'd been up to in the last few years. If so, take these questions with a grain of salt. I really don't mean them dirty.
I've got all the sympathy in the world for you and your blog. I know you're trying to do what you think is best, what you think will help the matter. Charity, though. Compassion, tenderness, gentleness, a quiet spirit. You ought to be all about these things. You don't believe the Kirk is about these things, right?
I'm not saying you ought to shut down your blog, stop writing, anything like that. But remember, the Lord's voice isn't in the storm, it's in the soft wind.
We'll laugh about the whole matter together some day in Glory.
Mr. Gibbs,
Thanks again for your kind response, but let’s cut to the chase. What we have here is a classic game that all Kult members play — starting with the Fearless Leader. It goes like this: When caught in sin, resort to the “I’m a tender-hearted, soft-spoken, misunderstood evangelical Christian and you should be as kind as me.” Wilson did this to Pastor Lane last week after I caught him in several bald-faced lies. You’ve learned well, but you don’t fool me. One look at your blog reveals an arrogant know it all who blows as often as Wilson. For example, “We Are Speaking Ill Of The Dead: A Eugoogily For Anna Nicole Smith.” I found this one in less than ten minutes.
Nice touch. Cut into the dead and tell us “if Anna Nicole Smith was not a worthless person then she was as close as a person can come to worthlessness without actually touching it.” Now hector me about “Charity, though. Compassion, tenderness, gentleness, a quiet spirit. You ought to be all about these things.” No, Mr. Gibbs, I’m not buying your newfound old-time religion. I bet if I spent an hour on your blog I’d find lots more even worse. Your faith, if you have any at all, is a tool to manipulate others, just like Wilson. You do not understand, however, that you cannot manipulate me and this is not a game. Monkey boy Sean Mahaffey tried the same thing. Same game; different monkey boy. (By the way, you almost had me; for a minute there I thought you might be different, but alas! you have proven my rule once again that Wilson corrupts everything and everyone in his sphere.)
So, rather than waste my time by responding to your obviously manipulative comments, why don’t you try again. You’re as hateful as the others and there’s no reason for you to hide it. Be yourself. Let it out. You’ve shown us you know better, now show us the abundance of your heart. And as before, please comment on A Christ Church Wife and why a godly woman would thank the community for opposing your pastor.
One other thing, I’ll be happy to answer all of your questions, as long as you drop the act. Hypocrisy is so unbecoming.
Mark,
Thanks for this response.
1. A couple of points to ponder. Were the last comment I made completely anonymous, I'm left to wonder what your reply would have been. Thoughts? I feel as though I have been dutifully disqualified here to speak. I'm always annoyed when Wilson disqualifies someone to speak- whether because they refuse their name, aren't in the covenant, etc. You're not going to answer my last comment because you're personally affronted by the source- how many times have you seen Wilson do the same thing?
2. I might add one to the last comment I made, though: Given your definition of a "monkey boy," Doug Wilson's brother Evan qualifies. Evan is a kind-hearted man who commonly has people from Christ Church into his house. He fellowships with them all the time. Similarly, Jim Wilson, Doug's father, fellowships with Christ Church members. Jim knows Doug better than anyone, yet Jim does not think Doug is evil. Evan has a big axe to grind with Doug, but Evan does not think he is evil. What gives?
3. As for the rest of your comment, I might respond, but I'll let it stand. Looking back, I think the article on Anna Nicole Smith was ill-conceived and I'd certainly not write it again. If there are other articles on my blog you think are hateful, I'm open to criticism, for sure. Perhaps I do use religion to manipulate people. Wait, let me take that back. I know I do. This is wrong and sinful. What do you think I should do to correct this? Repent, yes, and then?
4. As for A Christ Church Wife, I am sure she wrote out in opposition to Christ Church because she felt trapped. I don't doubt the voracity of the letter and I'm sure she's seen things that I have not. Eh, a year ago, when I wrote the article on Anna Nicole Smith that you mentioned, I might have summarily written off the letter because she wouldn't sign it. Now, I'm not so sure of that kind of thinking. It's clear that the woman who wrote it is suffering, and there is nothing in her relationships at home or at church that can really ease this suffering. I think she ought to be pitied and I can understand why she would turn to a group of people such as the MV2020 crowd because they would actually feel bad for her and the people at her church probably would not. What more can I say?
__
I think I'm most curious to hear what you think of Jim and Evan and their fellowship with Christ Church members. Are they monkey boys as well?
Mr. Gibbs,
Thank you again for your response; let’s take it one at a time.
“1. A couple of points to ponder. Were the last comment I made completely anonymous, I’m left to wonder what your reply would have been. Thoughts? I feel as though I have been dutifully disqualified here to speak. I’m always annoyed when Wilson disqualifies someone to speak — whether because they refuse their name, aren’t in the covenant, etc. You’re not going to answer my last comment because you’re personally affronted by the source — how many times have you seen Wilson do the same thing?”
My thoughts are that you tried this in your first two comments, where you postulated a hypothetical scenario that you detached from real-life circumstances to obtain a different conclusion. Moreover, my thoughts are that when I put your feet to the fire of your hateful blog post, the absence of charity and kindness in your words singed your toes to the point that you would rather be anonymous. And you know what? I don’t blame you. I would not want to answer for your words either.
So you feel dutifully disqualified (watch out, here comes a Wilson): I have not disqualified you. Rather, I qualified you. Get it? You appealed to a biblical standard that you obviously despise in order to manipulate a response out of me, and instead of disqualifying you, I qualified your real standard by appealing to your own words that reflect the state of your heart, which is not disqualification — it’s qualification. And as before, I don’t blame you for not admiring your quality.
“You’re not going to answer my last comment because you’re personally affronted by the source — how many times have you seen Wilson do the same thing?”
Mr. Gibbs, this is a misrepresentation of my position. I specifically wrote, “One other thing, I’ll be happy to answer all of your questions, as long as you drop the act. Hypocrisy is so unbecoming.” You did not offend me and I didn’t take it personally; you tried to manipulate me, which is certainly offensive and it’s personal but it was not the offense that I identified. Do you see the difference? Do you see how you have cleverly shifted my emphasis to evade responsibility? This is a symptom of everyone in the Kult. Wilson instills dishonesty in all his disciples and simultaneously he breeds irresponsibility. He corrupts them so that they become every bit as deceitful and evasive as him.
Therefore, to be clear, I pointed to your double standard and asked you to recompose your questions so that they reflected your real personality as opposed to the contrived personality that dripped goo all over my monitor. Dude, I’m still wiping it off my screen. Please show some consideration.
“2. I might add one to the last comment I made, though: Given your definition of a “monkey boy,” Doug Wilson’s brother Evan qualifies. Evan is a kind-hearted man who commonly has people from Christ Church into his house. He fellowships with them all the time. Similarly, Jim Wilson, Doug’s father, fellowships with Christ Church members. Jim knows Doug better than anyone, yet Jim does not think Doug is evil. Evan has a big axe to grind with Doug, but Evan does not think he is evil. What gives?”
I’m not sure I have defined monkey boy, so for the record, a monkey boy is a human being that has surrendered their will (autonomy) to the Fearless Leader. They live for him and would die for him. They lie for him on command; screech on command; swing from vine to vine on command; or emulate his deceitful ways because he has corrupted them. Evan Wilson is not a monkey boy. Evan Wilson is a genuine Christian, who loves the Lord Jesus with all his heart and loves the people of God no less. I admire Evan for many things and he is no monkey boy, which probably explains why his brother positively despises him. You, however, are a monkey boy because you deceive with the same flair as the big gorilla, and like him it doesn’t bother you in the least. I say this because you dragged Evan Wilson into the conversation to manipulate me by pitting his assessment of Wilson against mine. Moreover, just like Wilson you had to redefine a word, which happened to be a term with a unique definition on this blog (monkey boy), to hang it round Evan’s neck so that you could create a disagreement between him and me. Are you noticing a pattern here? Evan does not belong in this conversation any more than the Lennon Sisters. He is completely irrelevant. But you dragged him out of nowhere to serve your purposes.
“Jim knows Doug better than anyone, yet Jim does not think Doug is evil.” Jim Wilson is the problem, but I’m saving that one for my history of the CREC. The first installment shall be titled “The Sins of the Father.” Where was Jim when A Christ Church Wife posted her email? Where was Jim during the slavery scandal? Where was Jim when his son threatened the Latah County Commissioners? Where was Jim when his son . . . well, I don’t have enough patience to outline each crime and each scandal, so please do yourself a favor and remove Eli from the picture because in case you hadn’t noticed, he made an obvious effort to remove himself from the picture each time his son stuck his flesh hook in the Lord’s offering.
“Evan has a big axe to grind with Doug, but Evan does not think he is evil. What gives?” Crafty wording, but you should be more careful. Evan has no axe to grind with Wilson and if ever a man had cause to grind, Evan Wilson is that man. Indeed, I have never met a man more free of bitterness than Evan Wilson. But who cares? I certainly don’t care what Evan thinks of his brother, even when he attributes mental illness to him (which I suppose is a mitigating circumstance). But do the father’s and brother’s opinions matter? Was this a matter up for vote? I didn’t see it on the ballot. Who cares what they think? I certainly don’t. And if you want to put it on the ballot, then get ready for a landside of epic proportions. The majority of evangelical churches on the Palouse will have nothing do with that reprobate and some have prohibited him from performing ceremonies on their property.
“3. As for the rest of your comment, I might respond, but I’ll let it stand. Looking back, I think the article on Anna Nicole Smith was ill-conceived and I’d certainly not write it again. If there are other articles on my blog you think are hateful, I’m open to criticism, for sure. Perhaps I do use religion to manipulate people. Wait, let me take that back. I know I do. This is wrong and sinful. What do you think I should do to correct this? Repent, yes, and then?”
Mr. Gibbs, I appreciate your candor here but I’m not impressed. Repentance in the Kult is always a means to an end. “I repent now let’s go forward; please give me what I want.” But this only demonstrates that you do not understand biblical repentance, which suggests far more about the state of your soul than you seem prepared to address. To be sure, anyone who could confess that they use religion to manipulate others as casually as you have just done does not grasp the magnitude of their sin. I am not trying to be manipulative here; I am only trying to show you that confession is not the same thing as ordering a burger in the drive through. Confession does not give you what you want. Confession helps get you right with God and right with your fellow believers. Confession always requires humility and complete honesty. Confession stems from a broken heart; the sinner’s sorrow is always evident; and as a rule, the greater the sin the greater the sorrow. For example, Peter wept bitterly when he denied the Son of God but Paul didn’t shed a tear when he reviled the high priest. Some sins are greater than others. In your case you admitted that you use the Christian faith to exploit others and you aggravated this sin by admitting it with a suave and cavalier attitude. Mr. Gibbs, you should be in tears. The Son of God did not die so that you could have your way with others and He certainly did not forgive His enemies so that you could twist His words. Do you see how your casual response does not reflect sufficiently your sin? Do you see the disconnect? That’s why it struck me as disingenuous.
I’m not trying to kick you; I’m trying to prod you. If you love the Lord Jesus Christ, these things should move you without anyone having to tell you what to do. But life in the Kult desensitizes people to all manner of sin — especially deception — because Wilson trains people, by his actions, to deceive. He conditions them to accept his deceptions thereby teaching them to love deception. It’s a toxic environment that kills faith, if those inside ever had faith, and it extinguishes all love for the Son of God. Wilson replaces the Savior with himself in the life of his disciples and they seldom see this awful transfer take place. Look at you: you just admitted something that should have shattered you like a broken vessel, but your heart is so hard that it fell off your fingertips with no more feeling than your hateful words about Anna Nichol Smith. Just another day in the Kult.
“4. As for A Christ Church Wife, I am sure she wrote out in opposition to Christ Church because she felt trapped. I don’t doubt the voracity of the letter and I’m sure she’s seen things that I have not. Eh, a year ago, when I wrote the article on Anna Nicole Smith that you mentioned, I might have summarily written off the letter because she wouldn’t sign it. Now, I’m not so sure of that kind of thinking. It’s clear that the woman who wrote it is suffering, and there is nothing in her relationships at home or at church that can really ease this suffering. I think she ought to be pitied and I can understand why she would turn to a group of people such as the MV2020 crowd because they would actually feel bad for her and the people at her church probably would not. What more can I say?”
You are a complete stranger to me but you are the same identical person as everyone else in the Kult. You’re all the same. Read the words of A Christ Church Wife and read your response to her: “suffering . . . nothing in her relationships at home or at church that can really ease this suffering. . . ought to be pitied. . . the people at her church probably would not [feel bad for her].” And you close by asking, “What more can I say?”
Do you see how you are positively disconnected from this dear Christian sister and as well as the Christian faith? This woman is a member of your communion (Trinity and the Kult are Siamese twins joined at the hip) and if you’re being honest here (which I have no reason to believe), you acknowledge her pathetic plight without care or sympathy. Even worse, you summarized it with an appeal to yourself: “What more can I say?” The thought that you may have contributed to her sufferings does not occur to you and the thought of relieving her sufferings does not occur to you. This is because Wilson has trained his disciples to think only of themselves — after they’ve thought of him. There is no evangelical faith here, only what’s in it for him and you.
All members of the Kult are the same — they are selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive . . . I’m running out of words and I haven’t even begun. People in the Kult live as though everyone else exists to serve their whims. You commune in a land fill where pain and suffering abound (primarily because of the dumpster in the pulpit) and you admit this dear woman’s sufferings the same way you admit your sin.
Mr. Gibbs, take a tip from someone who means you no harm: Get out and get right with God. If you’ve read more than ten posts on this blog then you know you belong to a doctrinally aberrant sect — not by my standards but by the Reformed church’s standard. And doctrinal corruption always leads to or stems from personal corruption. Wilson and Leithart are filthy men with filthy hearts. They will continue to poison you to death because they don’t care any more for you than you care for A Christ Church Wife. Indeed, they created the death camp where she resides and they cultivated her agony more than anyone else. They use people and spit ’em out.
But you should flee from the wrath to come, because it’s coming. You dodged my questions about Sitler because you know my conclusion is true. You are in a culture that is under God’s hand of judgment. You live in a modern-day gehenna and you should flee before its stench infects your soul any worse. If you’re not born again, which is a very real possibility, then you should run to the Savior for eternal life. If you are born again, you should seek forgiveness from Him and from everyone you’ve sinned against. People don’t get as hard as you without sinning into obduracy.
Mr. Gibbs, get right before it’s too late. I write this with all sincerity. Get out before they eat you up worse than they already have.
Interesting picture, Mark. Devastating, actually. Some heart breaks in life are just too raw to deal with, but we all have to face the music of living in Doug’s world, don’t we. There is one thing you can count on. One thing that Wilson is keenly aware of. One thing at the top of his fear list in life - it’s a thinking woman. He can keep most men in their place quite easily because ego resolves much of that problem, but he can’t do that to the women. Any man Doug really believes could become a threat will either be hired or get a raise. Problem solved. Money answers everything for the faithless. Money keeps hypocritical male providers in line. Debt keeps faithless women quiet.
It takes faith to leave Christ Church. Passion for truth is what gives people the strength to walk away. I believe this wife wrote for more reasons than gratitude to the people on Vision 2020, though the sincerity of her thanks is unquestionable. I believe she wrote because a Kirker needed to finally speak publicly concerning life on the inside. Continuing to remain silent may have been impossible for her. Maybe she had dire hopes that somehow it could show other women how to begin an exit strategy from such a repressive environment.
It doesn’t take a Bible scholar to identify the wrong done by Wilson and Co., but it does take honesty and guts to keep calling leadership’s sin what it is given the oppressive nature there. Just as the Christ Church Wife refused to be compliant and silent, I believe there are other wives doing the same thing. It takes blinded spouses a while to face what’s taken/taking place in the Kirk, but if wives (or even their children) persevere the end result will be one of great deliverance. They need to continue in their determination to be free even if social loneliness temporarily becomes a way of life and isolation from cowardly friends result.
Christ Church women must step up to the plate and protect their children and husbands. They have the ability to do this. After all, if they can do all things through Christ which strengthens them then they can lead their families out of the Kirk.
Thank you, Mark, for your documentation and insight. This is an incredible service and labor of love.
This was quite the thorough response. Thanks for spending so much of a Friday evening on it. I'm sure you would have rather been spending time with your wife.
1. I brought up Evan Wilson was because of something you wrote. You said: If you try to hurt those who oppose Wilson by committing hateful actions against them or if you “fellowship” with those who do, then you are a cancer cell in a cancer-ridden body, malignant through and through. When you say "fellowship" did you mean "worship with"? I thought you meant "was friends with/have dinner together" and Evan and I are friends and share meals sometimes.
2. You wrote: In your case you admitted that you use the Christian faith to exploit others and you aggravated this sin by admitting it with a suave and cavalier attitude. I find the use of "cavalier" here a little odd given that you earlier wrote:
I believe that to the extent anyone sits under his ministry at all, they are putting their hand with the wicked and I remind them of it by using his favorite device — name-calling. Arbitrary? Maybe. Sinful? Maybe. Deserved? Absolutely. Calling people names may be a sin, but certain people deserve it anyway? How is this not a cavalier view of sin?
3. You wrote: All members of the Kult are the same — they are selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive . . . I’m running out of words and I haven’t even begun. A Christ Church Wife is not, though, and you don't know the identity of a Christ Church Wife. How many people are there like her at Christ Church? How many people suffer like she does? Do you not care for them? You brush everything and everyone off the table with statements like "All members of the Kult are the same..." You treat people like objects.
4. You wrote: You dodged my questions about Sitler because you know my conclusion is true. The only question about Sitler I've found in this comment thread was "Do you see the poetry of it all?" and I thought it was a rhetorical question. Clarify the question and I'll be happy to answer it. I am a bit taken back by the reference to children being molested as "poetry" though.
5. I appreciate the encouragement/request that I leave town. My wife and I are moving to Florida at the end of July. Wish granted, dude. Once we get to Florida, though, I can't say that you've really given me much of a reason to look for a Reformed church. You don't believe Christ Church and Trinity are Reformed Churches, but the kind of Church you represent doesn't seem like it has love to cover a multitude of sins or tries to assume the best about people. If you're an example of a Reformed person with a Reformed attitude, I think I ought to run as fast as I can from the Reformed Church. You call me "a complete stranger" in one paragraph and then "selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive..." in the next. You and I don't know each other very well.
I have to wonder what about the article regarding Anna Nicole Smith rubbed you the wrong way, then. If I had said that she was "selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, etc." you might have simply replied, "You don't know the woman!" and been right. I judged her off of very little and as you pointed out, I was wrong. So are you, to judge hundreds and hundreds of people whose names you do not know, whose stories you have never heard. A Christ Church Wife goes to Christ Church. This fact alone ought to temper your statement. "All members of the Kult..."? Even the ones that don't want to be there?
6. I'm going to grant that Christ Church doesn't make Christianity look attractive, but you certainly don't either. Stay with Christ Church and get verbally beaten up by you, defect to your side and get verbally beaten up by them. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Gibbs,
As always, thank you for your response. I shall continue as we began:
“1. I brought up Evan Wilson was because of something you wrote. You said: If you try to hurt those who oppose Wilson by committing hateful actions against them or if you “fellowship” with those who do, then you are a cancer cell in a cancer-ridden body, malignant through and through. When you say “fellowship” did you mean “worship with”? I thought you meant “was friends with/have dinner together” and Evan and I are friends and share meals sometimes.
If you take the pericope in context you’ll see that I limited it to the Kult:
“As far as I’m concerned, if you’re in it you’re part of the problem. If you tithe to it, you support a terrorist organization. If you pray imprecations against the brethren, you’re as evil as the others. If you try to hurt those who oppose Wilson by committing hateful actions against them or if you ‘fellowship’ with those who do, then you are a cancer cell in a cancer-ridden body, malignant through and through.”
In or out of context, you would have a tough time prosecuting Evan Wilson for trying “to hurt those who oppose Wilson by committing hateful actions against them.” As you observed, Evan has a heart of gold. He does not commit hateful actions against anyone.
We’re not off to a good start here, are we?
“2. You wrote: In your case you admitted that you use the Christian faith to exploit others and you aggravated this sin by admitting it with a suave and cavalier attitude. I find the use of ‘cavalier’ here a little odd given that you earlier wrote:
‘I believe that to the extent anyone sits under his ministry at all, they are putting their hand with the wicked and I remind them of it by using his favorite device — name-calling. Arbitrary? Maybe. Sinful? Maybe. Deserved? Absolutely.’ Calling people names may be a sin, but certain people deserve it anyway? How is this not a cavalier view of sin?”
Yesterday you admitted that you used the Christian faith to manipulate others and today you want bicker over the definition of “cavalier.” This is typical Kult behavior and very predictable. You do not see that your soul is in danger; you see an argument that you want to win. This tells me that the word “cavalier” was much too generous a term to apply to your circumstance.
But let’s run with your contention so that I can show you yet more of your dishonesty. You isolated one sentence of mine out of context to put a meaning on it that I never intended and you deliberately ignored the meaning that I actually did put on it. Here are the words that you ignored:
“Here’s the argument: Wilson devised a theology called “serrated edge” whereby he licenses himself to carve into the dignity of other human beings — Christian and non-Christian alike — at will. I believe that to the extent anyone sits under his ministry at all, they are putting their hand with the wicked and I remind them of it by using his favorite device — name-calling. Arbitrary? Maybe. Sinful? Maybe. Deserved? Absolutely. It’s deserved because Wilson’s disciples appear to give no thought to the ramifications of his behavior and its effect on them or on others, just like monkey boys.”
I granted that it may be sinful because I have had about three (perhaps two) friendly criticisms from those who thought “monkey boy” out of line. Personally, my conscience does not bother me. As I told monkey boy Sean Mahaffey, I would think that you affirm the importance of demeaning others because it plays such a pivotal role in the Fearless Leader’s theology. Someone disagrees with you — ridicule them. Someone calls you to repent — strip them of their dignity. Someone catches you breaking the law — call them an intolerista. I am quite surprised that you don’t appreciate being called monkey boy because according to your pastor it is biblical. You should take it as a compliment. Every time you look in the mirror you should say, “I am a monkey boy because monkey boy is biblical.”
“3. You wrote: All members of the Kult are the same — they are selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive . . . I’m running out of words and I haven’t even begun. A Christ Church Wife is not, though, and you don’t know the identity of a Christ Church Wife. How many people are there like her at Christ Church? How many people suffer like she does? Do you not care for them? You brush everything and everyone off the table with statements like “All members of the Kult are the same. . .” You treat people like objects.
Do you want me to hand you a few straws so that you don’t have to grasp so much? I think I’ve shown over the last few days that I’m willing to help you. Nevertheless, if you read the post that triggered our exchange you’ll see that I wrote,
“Her two posts speak for themselves — straight from the heart — and her testimony was compelling for two reasons: First, her evangelical faith and her love for God were obvious; you could see it in every word she wrote. Second, she confirmed the community’s worst fears about life inside the Kult. . . . Indeed, she is one more witness in a long line of witnesses who testified to his evil being. And for her sake and her family’s sake, I hope her so-called pastor never located her.”
So obviously I care for the poor souls trapped in the Kult, which includes you. Do you really believe I would spend as much time with you if I didn’t care for you? If you lack the ability to distinguish between true Christians suffering in the Kult and persons such as you who contribute to their pain then maybe we should start all over again. I would be happy to do that but something in me says that you’re more interested in fabricating handles to get a hold on me, which is not going to happen. Remember, you cannot manipulate me. But this is typical Kult behavior. You lie, you deceive, you evade responsibility, you cast blame — you’re all the same.
“4. You wrote: You dodged my questions about Sitler because you know my conclusion is true. The only question about Sitler I’ve found in this comment thread was “Do you see the poetry of it all?” and I thought it was a rhetorical question. Clarify the question and I’ll be happy to answer it. I am a bit taken back by the reference to children being molested as “poetry” though.
Yes, Mr. Gibbs, you are correct. I did not query you on Sitler; I corrected you. In your comment that I deleted you wrote that Sitler could not be God’s judgment on the Kult unless there were about “a dozen guys knocking down the doors of small children.” I pointed you to the Fearless Leader’s unqualified quotation and noted that God sent two molesters to the Kult. Please forgive me, however, because I did not in fact ask a question of you; I left the thought hanging.
But I’m glad to return to it because I want you to notice how you misrepresented me when you wrote, “I am a bit taken back by the reference to children being molested as ‘poetry’ though.” As before, you isolated one word out of context and put a meaning on it that I never intended when I wrote,
“Do you see the poetry of it all? Sitler’s folks raised him on Wilson’s poisonous formula for childrearing and when he grew up and they sent him off to Wilson’s school, God unleashed him on the Kult. Don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that Wilson’s toxic doctrine spawns pedophiles. I believe it breeds lawlessness, and pedophilia is about as lawless as you can get.”
I stand by my word and my argument.
“5. I appreciate the encouragement/request that I leave town. My wife and I are moving to Florida at the end of July. Wish granted, dude. Once we get to Florida, though, I can’t say that you’ve really given me much of a reason to look for a Reformed church. You don’t believe Christ Church and Trinity are Reformed Churches, but the kind of Church you represent doesn’t seem like it has love to cover a multitude of sins or tries to assume the best about people. If you’re an example of a Reformed person with a Reformed attitude, I think I ought to run as fast as I can from the Reformed Church. You call me “a complete stranger” in one paragraph and then “selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive. . .” in the next. You and I don’t know each other very well.
I have to wonder what about the article regarding Anna Nicole Smith rubbed you the wrong way, then. If I had said that she was “selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, etc.” you might have simply replied, “You don’t know the woman!” and been right. I judged her off of very little and as you pointed out, I was wrong. So are you, to judge hundreds and hundreds of people whose names you do not know, whose stories you have never heard. A Christ Church Wife goes to Christ Church. This fact alone ought to temper your statement. “All members of the Kult . . .”? Even the ones that don’t want to be there?”
Here we have more word twisting and manipulation. So let’s take it from the top so that I can show you your dishonest and manipulative ways.
You write, “Once we get to Florida, though, I can’t say that you’ve really given me much of a reason to look for a Reformed church. You don’t believe Christ Church and Trinity are Reformed Churches, but the kind of Church you represent doesn’t seem like it has love to cover a multitude of sins or tries to assume the best about people. If you’re an example of a Reformed person with a Reformed attitude, I think I ought to run as fast as I can from the Reformed Church.”
Well, I’m not sure whether to hand you a straw or a tissue, but I’m not going to feel sorry for you (at least not for the reasons you list). Two days ago I pointed out that when members of the Kult are caught in sin they resort to the “I’m a tender-hearted, soft-spoken, misunderstood evangelical Christian and you should be as kind as me” argument. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe you’re making this argument here except with a twist of self-pity. But don’t forget that just yesterday you admitted that you use the Christian faith to manipulate others and here we are today and guess what you’re doing? You’re using the Christian faith to manipulate a response from me, which is not going to happen. I am going to tell you the truth every single time because love may cover a multitude of sins but “Open rebuke is better than secret love” (Prov. 27:5).
You continue, “You call me “a complete stranger” in one paragraph and then “selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive. . .” in the next. You and I don’t know each other very well.”
Yes, I wrote all those things but in your attempt to fabricate a contradiction that you could hang on me you missed this sentence: “You are a complete stranger to me but you are the same identical person as everyone else in the Kult.” In other words, Mr. Gibbs, you are “selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive. . .” Do you want me to write it with a crayon? I don’t know you at all except from these exchanges and your blog, but every move you make is entirely predictable because you are a WILLING member of the Kult. Therefore you lie, deceive, connive, abuse, twist, manipulate, etc. It’s in your nature and you cannot stop from doing it because you are a member of the Kult. They feed you swill and you act like a creature that eats swill.
You write, “I have to wonder what about the article regarding Anna Nicole Smith rubbed you the wrong way, then. If I had said that she was ‘selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, etc.’ you might have simply replied, ‘You don’t know the woman!’ and been right. I judged her off of very little and as you pointed out, I was wrong. So are you, to judge hundreds and hundreds of people whose names you do not know, whose stories you have never heard. A Christ Church Wife goes to Christ Church. This fact alone ought to temper your statement. ‘All members of the Kult . . .’? Even the ones that don’t want to be there?”
I addressed this above. But I will note that the man who admitted he used the Christian faith to exploit others is predicating an argument on justice and compassion, which is the same manipulation, different leverage.
“6. I’m going to grant that Christ Church doesn’t make Christianity look attractive, but you certainly don’t either. Stay with Christ Church and get verbally beaten up by you, defect to your side and get verbally beaten up by them. Thanks a lot.”
It looks like I need to hand you another tissue. But before we wipe your nose, let me note a few facts and then ask you some questions. I have demonstrated time after time that you have misrepresented me, tried to manipulate me, and twisted the Christian faith into a tool to exploit others. I have demonstrated that this is a pattern for you and I have maintained that this is a pattern for all willing members of the Kult, which precludes A Christ Church Wife. I have noted that your behavior is sinful, which means you need to repent of it, and now I shall note that your behavior appears fixed and established: You appear content to be a cunning little manipulator who doesn’t care if he must lie and deceive to get his way. Trust me, this is not a flattering picture and I am not trying to compliment you. But the thing I don’t understand is that these facts don’t seem to bother you. Indeed, when I use very direct language to note these facts to you, you prove my point by twisting my words to make me appear something that I am not and you continue to try to manipulate me.
Here are my questions: Why do you continue to act so sinfully? Do you have any love for the Savior at all? Does your obviously deceitful behavior bother you at any level? Or do you justify your sin in your mind by arguing, “He’s a meanie; he’s not nice; he doesn’t cover a multitude of sins,” etc.?
I’m really curious about the pathology driving members of the Kult and I appreciate the exchange. This has been very helpful.
Anon,
Excellent comment, especially the part about “a thinking woman.” I have noted this fact before. I believe he hates women — especially thinking women — as much as he loves himself. Talk about hate! I think his abuse of Rosemary Huskey and her family says it all.
Mark,
I think your comments warrant a longer response, but alas, it is finals week and I have a twelve page paper to write on Joyce today. I want to keep up this conversation, but I'm going to have to keep it brief for now. You certainly have my attention, so I'll be back.
I'm interested in your broad dismisal of all Christ Church members as "arrogant, etc." given the extent of your personal experiences with Christ Church members. Any of the people who have gotten burned by Christ Church and left (I won't mention names, but we all know who they are) have been pretty slow to make such sweeping generalizations. It has been my experience that even the burned are apt to say things like, "There are certainly some good people who go there, people who love the Lord, but..." And this is the perspective of people who have suffered more, experienced more, known more Christ Church members. Why are those who know more, yet have been hurt more, so slow to make the generalizations that you do?
While you make several claims to have answered my questions in your last comment, you basically just said, time and time again, that I had "twisted your words." I followed your alleged rebuttals and could not make sense of how I had twisted anything. I've found that in arguements like this, both sides, when caught in a contradiction, resort to "You're just twisting my words." You accused me of being cavalier and cool, I referred you to "Sinful? Maybe" and you came back with "You're taking me words out of context." I haven't taken you out of context at all.
Above all, your response was shot through with "Personally, my conscience does not bother me." Well, that settles it, doesn't it?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I can't promise an extended response to your own today, but I'll certainly check back to see what you've written.
In the meantime, given that you live in the area and that Reformed doctrine is very important to you, can you suggest a church around here that my wife and I ought to go to in our last few months around? Where can we get good Reformed teaching and friendly fellowship?
Take care.
Here we go again. I am very happy to say that genuine Christians attend Christ Church, Moscow (aka the Kult) as I noted in my last comment and the original post when I observed the likes of A Christ Church Wife. Apparently you missed this comment. Or maybe you ignored it to make create more leverage, which is more likely.
Nevertheless, my emphasis has been, and it continues to be, that Douglas Wilson corrupts those in his sphere of influence and that monkey boys such as you are living proof of said corruption. The difference between you and me vis-à-vis those who have left the Kult is that while you speak in general terms of your experience informed by ignorance, I have interviewed virtually every family that the Fearless Leader drove out of the Kult and without exception they were SHUNNED and PUBLICALLY CONTEMNED universally by those members who remained in the Kult after the purge. For example, one man who’s marriage the Fearless Leader is currently destroying told me that one day everyone treated him kindly and the next, without warning, everyone began shunning him and giving him the evil eye. This is simply more evidence of Wilson’s corrupting influence on those in his control, but it’s also drop-dead proof that those members who willingly participate in the Two Minutes Hate, which is what? 99% of the Kult, are selfish, arrogant, unfeeling, without natural affection, abusive, cunning, deceptive, etc. They certainly do not fulfill John 13:35, which states, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” But if it makes you feel any better, no, not every member of the Kult is all of these things, only those members who willing participate in the fires of Molech. You do the math.
Along these lines there’s an excellent book called On Killing that discusses the psychological effects of death on those who kill (primarily soldiers). The book has a fascinating chapter titled “The Winds of Hate” that discusses the psychological devastation caused by hate, such as we see emanating from the Kult.
You write, “While you make several claims to have answered my questions in your last comment, you basically just said, time and time again, that I had ‘twisted your words.’ I followed your alleged rebuttals and could not make sense of how I had twisted anything. I’ve found that in arguements like this, both sides, when caught in a contradiction, resort to ‘You’re just twisting my words.’ You accused me of being cavalier and cool, I referred you to ‘Sinful? Maybe” and you came back with ‘You’re taking me words out of context.’ I haven’t taken you out of context at all.”
This statement is not surprising and entirely predictable. Therefore the only way to resolve our differences is (a) you go back and reread where I juxtaposed you misrepresentations with my exact words or (b) we exhaust one point at time until there’s resolution. I will be glad to do either with you.
“Above all, your response was shot through with ‘Personally, my conscience does not bother me.’ Well, that settles it, doesn’t it?”
Once again, I made this statement in the direct context of your “monkey boy” concerns. And, yes, it settles it here unless you can advance a cogent argument to rebut the argument I made, which, as before, you ignored.
“In the meantime, given that you live in the area and that Reformed doctrine is very important to you, can you suggest a church around here that my wife and I ought to go to in our last few months around? Where can we get good Reformed teaching and friendly fellowship?”
There are no Reformed churches on the Palouse and there are no plants on the way. And quite frankly you don’t need a Reformed church, you need an evangelical church (two hundred years ago the words were synonymous but things have changed). Wilson’s perverse patriarchy and his tyrannical government defile everyone in the Kult and the best remedy is some good old-fashioned modern-evangelical religion — the kind that you threw at me in our opening exchange. You need to love those things you hate and hate those things you love, starting with the Christian faith.
I look forward to more exchanges, but when you come back I would like you to start with the first point where you claimed, “I followed your alleged rebuttals and could not make sense of how I had twisted anything.” This will be interesting.
Thanks so much.
Mr. Foucachon,
We have a strict policy prohibiting Wilson’s monkey boys from naming Wilson’s enemies. You may not realize it, but your comment proves many of my points. You people are so hateful that you slander complete strangers without giving it a second thought.
Please rewrite the comment without naming anyone and I’ll be happy to publish it.
Post a Comment