Say You’re Sorry

“Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matt 5:11–12)

“If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” (1 Peter 4:14–16)

“The church here in Moscow has a long way to go, and we have a lot to learn. But we have received the grace of being disgraced; we have obtained the honor of being dishonored; we have received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.” — Douglas Wilson, January 3, 2007

Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, penned this sound bite exactly three years after his Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004, presumably to summarize his recollection of events. To be sure, its lofty language leaves the impression that during the controversy Wilson conformed his demeanor to the principles of Matthew 5:11–12 and 1 Peter 4:14–16. Indeed, the words are so noble that reader may be tempted to believe Wilson actually believed what he wrote here. In fact, I’ll state for the record that I believe Wilson really believed what he wrote. I must add, however, that I also believe this has not always been the case because at the height of the scandal no one witnessed him jumping for joy, though when things got out of control he began labeling his reproach as “persecution for the gospel’s sake.”

Last week we examined in excruciating detail Wilson’s outrageous conduct relative to a book review of SSAIW, written by two historians from the University of Idaho, and a few weeks ago I footnoted several of his attempts to control the media that resulted in him demanding apologies from various news sources. Today I want to begin contemplating these historical facts and the character they betray, to demonstrate what Wilson really meant when he wrote, “But we have received the grace of being disgraced; we have obtained the honor of being dishonored; we have received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.”

Personally, I believe that I have produced enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only person who was disgraced, dishonored, and lied about during Douglas Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal. And in case you have forgotten, Douglas Wilson disgraced, dishonored, and lied about the Son of God, both with his words and his actions, as he maintained adamantly that the thesis of his book Southern Slavery As It Was was biblical. It all started with a mind-boggling revision of American history called SSAIW; it developed as the Fearless Leader stood firm, saying, “I resolved a long time ago that I would not be ashamed of anything in the Bible”; it escalated as Wilson and members of the Kult began hurling invectives at the community, to defend the cause of the gospel and of slavery; and it escalated beyond remedy with the Kult’s offensive and deceitful PR campaign, which bombed miserably.

And at that point the dynamic shifted. Every shenanigan of the Fearless Leader’s failed to win anyone to his cause. But face it, slavery is a tough sell in an academic community. So Douglas Wilson did what he always does in his controversies: he turned it into a personal grudge match and in this case he fostered a grudge between him, the two UI historians, and the University of Idaho. Therefore, he escalated tensions by challenging the two historians to a debate, which they ignored. Not satisfied, the Fearless Leader pushed even harder by threatening legal action against the University of Idaho, which we shall consider below. But if we want to be consistent with Wilson’s interpretation of events, then we should conclude that when he “received the grace of being disgraced” he threatened the UI with a defamation suit. And when the UI ignored his frivolous threat, the Fearless Leader appealed to the Governor of the State of Idaho (which we shall consider in the next post), who ignored Wilson as well. Again, however, if we want to be consistent with Wilson’s memory of events, then we must conclude that when he “obtained the honor of being dishonored,” he blubbered to the governor like a spoiled little snot. And escalations reached an all-time high when the Fearless Leader uploaded hatesplotch.net to the worldwide web, which we must presume was his way of expressing gratitude to God and man that he “received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.” However, thus far we have not seen any instances where anyone from the community bore false witness about Wilson or the Kult, though we have documented several instances where he violated the Ninth.

The scandal culminated with a so-called history conference that closed the deal: The Fearless Leader made his neck like iron and his brow as brass, binding the Peculiar Institution to the gospel as a primary doctrine of the Christian faith and maintaining that those who disagreed with him were persecuting him for righteousness’ sake. He made it to the finish line without conceding any point of fact during the controversy (or afterwards), insisting the whole time that his book was biblical and not racist. He branded slavery on his forehead as with a hot iron, searing as many consciences as possible in the process.

Today, however, we want to consider the Fearless Leader’s email to the president of the University of Idaho. You will recall that Douglas Wilson challenged Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey to debate the thesis of SSAIW and, understandably, they ignored him. Why would anyone engage a lunatic on any point, let alone the fairytale of slaves living the good life? Therefore, one month after daring the two historians to debate him, the Fearless Leader adopted Plan B: To the stick! And on December 19, 2003, Douglas Wilson sent the following email to the president and the provost of the University of Idaho and he carbon copied his attorney, Greg Dickison:

From: Douglas
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:18 AM
To: bpitcher@uidaho.edu
Cc: gdickison@moscow.com
Subject: Diversity Office

Dear President Michael and Provost Pitcher,

Early this week I sent a letter to Raul Sanchez in which I told him that I was grateful that he had removed the Quinlan/Ramsey piece from his website. At the same time, my letter went on to ask for an apology for its appearance in the first place. The only response I have noted thus far is the reappearance of a revised version of that same essay. The revised version is an improvement in the sense that the most sophomoric errors were removed, but the basic incendiary problems with the essay remain.

I am sure you are very busy men, and that you have better things to do than put out fires that have been started by your own diversity office. But the fact remains that the “fires” that are contained in the essay by Quinlan and Ramsey fall into two categories as far as the University of Idaho is concerned — embarrassing and dangerous. This means that they really must be dealt with, and I am sorry that I am the one who has to ask you to do it.

The embarrassing part is easy enough to ascertain. There are at least four factual errors in the first paragraph, and the rest of the essay continues the tradition. Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey make much of the fact that they are professional historians, but the demonstrable fact remains that they are extremely sloppy professional historians. I would rather have no adversaries at the University of Idaho at all, but if I must, I appreciate the fact that their scholarship is of this caliber. I want this controversy to die. But if it does not, I am extremely grateful that it is being waged against me like this.

The dangerous part is of greater concern to you, and involves the current overall situation at the University of Idaho. That concern is financial and political, not legal. Please note that this letter is not threatening a suit for defamation. I have better things to do. But it is to let you know that I have been counseled to consider it, and that the slanderous Quinlan/Ramsey piece does bring the phrase “reckless disregard for the truth” to mind. The central point is to let you know that if the facts of this particular controversy were to find their way into the hands of those who are looking for ways to hammer the University of Idaho, it would be very difficult for the UI to defend itself. In short, the University of Idaho has enough trouble going right now without your diversity office generating more of it for you.

I am a graduate of the UI, as is my wife. I have no desire whatever to be involved in a controversy with the university. I regret the current problems the UI is going through. That is why it astounds me that your diversity office has chosen to start picking new fights.

The Quinlan/Ramsey essay is slanderous, defamatory, inaccurate, sloppy, and, to the point of your concern, unnecessary. I am therefore asking you to see to it the Quinlan/Ramsey piece is pulled from the diversity office web site, and an apology put in its place. I appreciate your consideration of this request. I would be happy to meet with you in person to discuss this further if you would wish.

Sincerely,

Douglas Wilson

For those of you just joining us, this is an accurate word-for-word reproduction of an email that Douglas Wilson really sent to the University of Idaho. This is not a joke or a prank on my part (how could I fabricate something like this?). A professing minister of the gospel threatened the University of Idaho with a libel suit because they used their website to circulate a book review of a book that he wrote to defend race-based slavery as a biblical practice. And quite frankly, I’m not sure which was more scandalous — the book or the email. Nevertheless, Wilson wrote this email after the Kult’s PR campaign failed to win any converts to the cause of slavery or the gospel, and he failed to persuade anyone of his good intentions. Think of it as the next logical step for a man who had no other options available to him — the argumentum ad baculum.

The first paragraph establishes the tone as well as the goal of the email and things quickly unwound from there. There are six points you should notice:

1. The first thing you should notice is that Douglas Wilson refused to acknowledge that the publication in question, Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t, was a book review of a book that he co-wrote, edited, and self-published. He called it a “piece” three times and an “essay” five times, but he never acknowledged that it was a book review of his book. His email pretends as though the two historians wrote their work in a vacuum, intending to deliberately libel him. He completely ignores this critical point because he knew that if he conceded their work was a review of his book, then he would have lost all standing to complain. Books compose part of the pubic rostrum of ideas, which means they’re fair game for criticism, and if you don’t want your books criticized then you shouldn’t write. Wilson knows this and he knew it in 2003 because in 1996 he wrote and published The Contours of Post-Maturity to deride Intervarsity Press for certain books it had published. Therefore, he tried to reframe the debate so that he could fabricate a cause of action against the UI. He’s always trying to create handles and though this kind of rhetoric passes muster in the CREC, it generally leaves educated folk scratching their heads, if not wetting their pants.



2. The second thing you should notice about this email is that the Fearless Leader played the role of legal counsel for himself and the University of Idaho, which is simply hilarious when you note the well-worn cliché: “He who would represent himself in court has a fool for an attorney.” In this case the fool gave legal advice to an adversary of his making, which I’m sure gave the legal office at UI a kick:
   
   

   . . . the basic incendiary problems with the essay remain. . . . the fact remains that the “fires” that are contained in the essay by Quinlan and Ramsey fall into two categories as far as the University of Idaho is concerned — embarrassing and dangerous. This means that they really must be dealt with . . . . The dangerous part is of greater concern to you. . . That concern is financial and political, not legal. Please note that this letter is not threatening a suit for defamation. . . But it is to let you know that I have been counseled to consider it, and that the slanderous Quinlan/Ramsey piece does bring the phrase “reckless disregard for the truth” to mind. The central point is to let you know that if the facts of this particular controversy were to find their way into the hands of those who are looking for ways to hammer the University of Idaho, it would be very difficult for the UI to defend itself. . . . The Quinlan/Ramsey essay is slanderous, defamatory, inaccurate, sloppy, and, to the point of your concern, unnecessary.

   
   There are four sub-points you should notice here:



1. First, don’t think twice about Wilson’s disclaimer — “That concern is financial and political, not legal. Please note that this letter is not threatening a suit for defamation.” This is dougspeak that states the UI faced potential “financial and political” consequences for its actions, but he never defined those consequences, which explains why his email beat relentlessly the theme of legal liability. This was absolutely a threat, albeit a frivolous threat without merit.



2. Second, notice that Wilson didn’t bother to cite any slander, libel, or defamation laws that he believed the UI violated. He simply asserted their guilt as a foregone conclusion. This is typical for the Fearless Leader. When his hole blows, he expects everyone to agree with him. It’s a settled point not subject to discussion. You must agree.




3. Third, notice that Wilson failed to provide any citations from the book review that he believed crossed the line into defamation; in other words, he failed to demonstrate how the book review was slanderous and defamatory — he didn’t even try. He merely asserted it. I note this fact because, as a rule, you have to make a case before you can win a case and in this case he had no case. But he sure huffed and puffed.



4. Fourth, there’s a rich irony here that most folks would probably miss: Wilson’s primary nemesis in this email, Raul Sanchez, who was head of the Office of Diversity and Human Rights at that time, earned a JD from Harvard Law School. And even though he was not the UI’s legal counsel, I am confident that he had a sufficient grasp of First Amendment law to know that the UI had every right to post the book review to its website and that the review itself did not meet the threshold for libel, let alone “reckless disregard for the truth.”

Despite these compelling facts, the Fearless Leader demonstrated his command of the law, which rivals his command of Southern history, and delivered his expert opinion to the University of Idaho. And they didn’t even have to ask for it.


3. The third thing you should notice about this email is Wilson’s transparent attempt to sow division between the UI administration and the UI Office of Diversity and Human Rights:
   
   

   I am sure you are very busy men, and that you have better things to do than put out fires that have been started by your own diversity office. . . . In short, the University of Idaho has enough trouble going right now without your diversity office generating more of it for you. . . . That is why it astounds me that your diversity office has chosen to start picking new fights.

   
   This is typical behavior from the Fearless Leader whereby he endeavors to pit one person against another or, as in this instance, one department against another. We saw him do it at Church of the King–Santa Cruz and we saw him do it with Dr. Clark and Pastor Lane. Childish stuff, I know, but the man loves to create conflicts of interest in others in order to exploit them for his own ends. Wilson’s remonstrance notwithstanding, the Office of Diversity and Human Rights did not operate as a rogue branch of the university. It performed its responsibilities according to its mission, which included to “Develop . . . & make available educational materials . . . to the University.” And whatever else is true Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t is educational.



4. The fourth thing you should notice is how Wilson transferred the responsibility for “picking fights” from himself to the UI:
   
   

   I would rather have no adversaries at the University of Idaho at all. . . I want this controversy to die. But if it does not, I am extremely grateful that it is being waged against me like this. . . . I have no desire whatever to be involved in a controversy with the university. . . it astounds me that your diversity office has chosen to start picking new fights.

   
   These statements reveal a delusional mind. If he was so grateful that the UI waged its controversy with him “like this,” stating that his opponents were inept, then why would he threaten them with a suit and demand that they remove the book review from their website? Apparently he was not so grateful that they waged their controversy with him “like this.” Regardless, the point is that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, was at the center of a community-wide controversy wherein the University of Idaho composed one part of the community. Wilson provoked and antagonized everyone who disagreed with him — including the faculty, administration, and student body of the UI (as well as WSU) — with inimical and hateful words and deeds. He picked fights with anyone who criticized him. He delivered cutting insults to anyone who corrected him. He inflamed the controversy by his refusal to acknowledge the truth about his booklet. And despite these facts, he accused the UI of picking a fight with him.



5. The fifth thing you should notice about this email is Douglas Wilson’s goal — the one thing he hoped to achieve:
   
   

   At the same time, my letter went on to ask for an apology for its appearance in the first place. . . . I am therefore asking you to see to it the Quinlan/Ramsey piece is pulled from the diversity office web site, and an apology put in its place.

   
   The Fearless Leader wanted an apology. You did not misread this. The man who “received the grace of being disgraced,” the man who “obtained the honor of being dishonored,” the man who “received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about,” asked the University of Idaho to apologize for posting a book review of SSAIW on its website because he alleged, without proof, it was slanderous and defamatory. So he wanted an apology. In fact, this email was his second official request for an apology. The man who fillets others with his serrated tongue wanted an apology. Could the little man behind the curtain be any smaller? Could the Fearless Leader be any pettier? Perhaps he wasn’t wearing his Canon Press “Literature for a life less petty” sweatshirt.
   
   
   This is not the “grace of being disgraced.” This is the disgrace of being a disgrace. It’s also the essence of hypocrisy. It’s certainly not a Christian witness. He wanted the University of Idaho to post an apology on its website for having hosted a book review of his evil book SSAIW. What? — did the UI hurt his feelings? Please pass me a Kleenex, I almost feel like crying. It’s not about slavery. It’s about sniveling. Honestly, Wilson’s demand that the UI amend for an offense that never occurred contradicts such a basic principle of Christianity that if you need an explanation, then you probably need to be born again. This is Christianity 101, which leads to my last and most important point.
   
   
6. The last thing you should notice about this email is that while Douglas Wilson framed an argument that ignored the essential nature of the book review on the UI’s website; while he gave ridiculous legal counsel to the University of Idaho; while he tried to sow discord at the UI; while he blamed the UI for picking fights with him; and while he wasted everyone’s time by demanding an apology for a non-existent offense; Steven Sitler was raping helpless lambs of the Christ Church flock. Read it again: While Douglas Wilson prosecuted his one-man culture war for Southern slavery on the Palouse, a serial pedophile had his way, unmolested, with the dear children of the Kirk. Talk about out of touch with reality. Indeed, the Great Protector put it best when he wrote, “I have better things to do.” Unfortunately, we shall see that he really didn’t mean this because he continued to waste the valuable time of others by taking his complaint to the Governor of the State of Idaho, seeking to obtain a silly apology for this contrived offense. Behold the abundance of Douglas Wilson’s heart. This absurd demand reveals his proud selfishness in high definition. I am not sure it’s possible to demonstrate his self-absorption any better. And the thing that is most frightening is that when he reads this post (he reads every one of them), he will feel completely justified for his scandalous behavior and he will not see how his egotistical actions in any way tended to the dereliction of his pastoral duties (not that he’s a pastor; I only note this point because he plays the role in public) or shamed the gospel.

The University of Idaho answered Douglas Wilson’s email with a gracious but dismissive note; they did not pull the book review from their website; and they did not apologize. The Fearless Leader did not prevail. He lost this battle in abject humiliation. But he can hold his high, knowing that he “received the grace of being disgraced”; he “obtained the honor of being dishonored”; and he “received the great compliment of being significant enough to lie about.” And he really brought glory to God in the process.



Thank you.