Fœdero Schism

“Tipper Over”

2008-08-06T17:37:00.000-07:00

A week or so ago a friend sent me a link to this blog. I don’t know anything about it except what I’ve read on the “About” page, but the comments on this particular thread are a riot.

Thank you.

Leading the Charge

2008-08-02T18:01:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago we received a suggestion/request to juxtapose copies of Wilson’s quotation advocating the death penalty for pedophiles from his book Fidelity next to his letter to Judge John Stegner pleading him to limit the sentence for serial pedophile Steven Sitler. And since this is a fully documented anonymous attack blog, we produced the full documentation (“Open-line Tuesday”) to prove the point that when Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, affirms one of his convictions in writing, you better sniff once and think twice before you actually believe it, let alone before you think that he actually believes it. Because he doesn’t.

Sure, he writes with conviction and authority. Sure, he leaves the impression that he holds his principles dearly. Sure, he writes as though he really believes he’s articulating non-negotiable biblical truths, handed straight from God to Moses to him (though to be fair, most of the time you could delete Moses). But it’s all an act. He doesn’t believe a word of it. It’s all for show. He understands that deep down inside most people need to hang on to absolutes, and so he panders to the crowd. He makes a stance, puffs his chest, and blows. And he looks good doing it too. But it’s all for looks — it’s all for show — it’s all act. Wilson is a hypocrite from head to toe. Look at the images appended below. Try to reconcile his hard-line theonomic position in Fidelity with his letter to Judge John Stegner on behalf of serial pedophile Steven Sitler. Try to account for him advocating the death penalty for pedophiles on the one hand and urging Judge Stegner to limit Sitler’s sentence on the other.

Before you look, however, take a few minutes to listen to the following YouTube. It’s a public conversation between Wilson and one of his former professors at UI, Dr. Nick Gier, where Wilson confidently invokes the death penalty as an answer to Dr. Gier’s objections regarding the way Southern Christians treated their slaves in the antebellum South. Dr. Gier introduces the subject at the 3:27-minute mark, and at the 4:04-minute mark Wilson starts his act:

Let me put it this way, let me put it this way, I’m speaking as a pastor: If — if I had been a pastor in the antebellum South and I had been confronted with a member of my church who raped or abused any of his slaves, I would have led the charge in excommunicating such a one for professing the name of Christ while behaving that way, and if he had been abusing his slaves the way you described, I would not have any problem with urging the Civil Magistrate to execute such a person. No one. . . .

Wilson blew these words on January 31, 2007, or roughly eighteen months after he blew his letter to Judge Stegner on August 19, 2005. And in the recording, once you get past his supposition that owning slaves was not morally wrong, you have to notice his use of the word “urging”: “I would not have any problem with urging the Civil Magistrate to execute such a person.” You have to notice this because in his letter to Judge Stegner, Wilson wrote, “At the same time, I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited.” Of course, the conditions upon which Wilson predicated his “urge” with Dr. Gier were the raping and whipping of slaves. In other words, he would “urge” the death penalty in cases of raping and whipping, but if Sitler teaches us anything he wouldn’t “urge” the death penalty in cases of rape alone. There has to be whipping.

And you can’t miss his apologetic to Dr. Gier after Nick raised the objection that the antebellum Presbyterians failed to defend the slaves. At the 4:51-minute mark, Wilson quipped (boasted?), “You know what, you know why it never happened? — because I wasn’t there.” But he was there when Sitler raped his victims and he was there when Jamin Wight committed his sins, and in both cases Wilson ditched his strongly held biblical convictions to insure the safe and seamless reintroduction of both predator-criminals into the flock. He led the charge alright, and he led it with all his heart.

And the moral of this story is that it doesn’t matter if Wilson writes it or says it — he doesn’t mean a word of it. It’s all an act.

Here is page 85 from the book Fidelity, by Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, and page 2 of his letter to Judge Stegner:

HT: SC
Thank you.

Steven Sitler

2008-07-30T18:01:00.000-07:00

Someone recently posted serial pedophile Steven Sitler’s latest SOR photograph on Vision 20/20. Before I say more, however, I want to note that I really feel sorry for Steven Sitler. I know that he committed unspeakable abominations, but I also know that he cannot stop himself, which is the reason I pity him. And just in case you think I’m getting soft, please note that I know Steven Sitler is fully 100% responsible for his actions, depravity notwithstanding. This is why I believe the best thing the state could do for him is execute him mercifully. Short of that, the state should put him away for life. He poses too much of a threat to society to grant him any kind of liberty. As one of my attorneys said, “He’s going to start killing his victims — that’s what they always do.”

Now look at his latest Idaho Sex Offender Registry photograph and tell me if it doesn’t give you the willies (we placed it next to Beelzeblog for comparison; the resemblance is uncanny). Also, notice that his home address is 329 North Main Street. That’s about six blocks from his alma mater New Saint Andrews College — or roughly a five-minute walk. Talk about a millstone.

Thank you.

Testimony From the Heart

2008-07-25T18:47:00.000-07:00

Everyone knows testimony from the heart when they read it. A young lady just left the following comment on “Diary of a Pirated Church”; please read it:

Ophelia Moonstone said . . .

I went to EPC as a child. Michael Marshall is my father. We were part of the renegades that left. I was so young at the time I only knew what my father told me. Burke Shade influenced my father in many dangerous ways. He encouraged what he called “spanking” but what was more like beating with a belt. He approved of this being used even on teens.

I never liked him as a child. He was pushy and disingenuous. Families with children in regular school were put under tremendous pressure to homeschool. Clothing for women had to be unattractive from any angle, or it was looked down upon.

Wives were expected to be mindlessly subservient and obedient. My father had told my mother not to go to the library with me and my younger brother and she went anyway. Because of this, Burke Shade came to my house and “chastised” my mother. He ganged up on her and verbally harassed her. I listened from another room. I was 13 and very very angry.

We finally left due to a disagreement with the Akins and the Bankesters. The Akins were under the impression that I had gotten their teenage daughter, who had been a good friend to me in childhood, into promiscuous sex and drugs. This was not true. Because of the rumors, however, my scapegoat status was secured.

Our departure was an ugly one. I hope Burke Shade melts in a pool of his own excrement. He made me hate church.

I cannot substantiate her testimony but I believe every word of it for two reasons:

Everyone in Moscow can confirm the part about Stepford Wives who wear parachutes as they homeschool their children to insure that the colony of mindless clones will walk in lockstep like lemmings to the cliff (most Kult members do not know this, but the Kult elders ridicule home-schooling mothers as “Prairie Muffins” behind their backs; Wilson wants the children in Logos where HE can control their minds).

By now everyone knows that the Federal Vision is a euphemism for power-hungry pastors who hold ultra-high views of the sacraments while they split churches and beat sheep — it’s code for “Canis Lupus Vision.” So even though she was in Illinois, Wilson’s boilerplate left the same impression on her as it does everyone else. I haven’t even got near the subject of him driving people from the Church and from the faith. But Ophelia said it better than I ever could.

Thankfully, however, Wilson, Shade, and all the CREC wolves will face that great shepherd of the sheep. And if they had any brains at all, they would realize that all their hateful deeds will come back on them a thousand fold — only then it will be too late. These brutes should expect to reap in eternity what they sow in time.

Thank you.

Canis lupus 3

2008-07-25T07:30:00.000-07:00

Continuing with a few thoughts on our Lord’s warning to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing, here is another video of a wolf pack hunting prey. Like the previous video where the pack sought to isolate the caribou calves, this video shows the pack isolate a buffalo calf (at the 4:45-minute mark). However, unlike the previous video where the herd abandoned the calf to its fate, here we see healthy bison rescue their calf from the wolf pack. In this respect you could argue that the herd functioned as a healthy body that protected itself from predation. Sadly, however, the protection only went so far because wolves will be wolves, and they must eat. Consequently, they successfully isolated a weak bison and brought him to a slow painful death.

Of course, there are many analogies we could draw here, but I want to go another direction. As you watch this poor beast die, remind yourself that our Lord warned us against wolves who dress as sheep. So in this case, consider the awful damage these wolves would wreak if they looked like buffaloes. They would have had the calf and more because none of the other herd would have suspected them. According to our Lord, this is how wolves operate in the Church.

Finally, make careful note when the narrator says, “killing quickly is not a choice.” The kills I’ve seen are every bit as agonizing as this one — with one difference: The prey never knew they faced wolves until the predators bared their fangs — and then it was too late. This is because the wolves looked and acted like sheep. In short, they were wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Thank you.

Excellent Point

2008-07-22T16:43:00.000-07:00

I just received an excellent comment worthy of front-page coverage:

Anonymous said . . .

Something that seems apparent from evidence that has been presented here is that FV (or maybe it is just [Christ Church]) leaders do not seem particularly concerned to protect the smallest and most defenseless people among them; they are more concerned to protect the hierarchy. Perhaps it’s another aspect of the apparent FV impulse for union with Rome.

Thank you.

Canis lupus 2

2008-07-18T06:32:00.000-07:00

Her princes in her midst are roaring lions;
Her judges are evening wolves
That leave not a bone till morning.
Her prophets are insolent, treacherous people;
Her priests have polluted the sanctuary,
They have done violence to the law. — Zephaniah 3:3, 4

We have lifted the following article and picture gallery from OutdoorLife.com. It furnishes us with another profound lesson in predatory behavior taken straight from the wolf.

Again, in the Sermon on the Mount our Lord Jesus Christ did not choose the metaphor “wolves” to warn against false teachers because He thought it clever or colorful. It is a real-life term that we see play out every day in the Church. This fact is especially true as it applies to Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow. Over the years one family after another has bore witness to the same identical testimony regarding Wilson’s sadistic cruelty. The circumstances for each family varies, but the narratives are all the same — Wilson will stop at nothing to exact vengeance against those members who catch him in sin and then try to leave. In every single instance the sin is always lying, because Wilson lies like the devil, and when caught the hunt begins. He pursues his prey (preyishioners) to silence them or utterly ruin them forever, depending on his appetite. He targets their livelihoods, their careers, their character, their public reputation — you name it — he will stop at nothing.

As you read this narrative, keep in mind that wolves have no moral capacity. This wolf merely acted according to his nature. He was hungry so he took a bite. He was completely oblivious to the doe’s agony. In this respect natural predators are comparable to nature’s psychopaths. They lack compunction and they are violently aggressive. At this point, however, our Lord’s metaphor fails. Natural predators will not give account at the Great White Throne. They kill because they’re hungry. Not so for wolves in the Church. Like natural wolves, they have no conscience but unlike wolves they are without excuse.

The metaphor fails at another point as well. Whereas the wolf was insensible to the deer’s pain and he did not act out of malice, it’s clear that Wilson derives pleasure when he inflicts pain — hence the word sadistic. I have seen him do exactly as this wolf, mercilessly attacking persons whom he already mortally wounded, for no other reason than sick desire. He’s not satisfied unless his prey (the sheep) suffers.

The following is a pictorial account of Wilson serving in the Christian ministry. Read it, and pray for the saints in Moscow:

Eaten Alive: Wolf Predation Captured On Camera
Michael Veine was hunting grouse in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula when he stumbled upon a wolf attacking a doe.

On October 24, 2006, Michael Veine was bird hunting in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula along the Escanaba River when he heard agonizing bellows coming from a long distance away. Stalking in the direction of the noise, he came upon a wolf attacking a deer. At first the wolf chased the adult doe along the riverbank, lunging repeatedly at her and biting the backs of her legs. He kept up the assault until he eventually hamstrung her. Unable to run, the doe was pulled down, and the wolf began feeding on her even though she was still alive. On the opposite side of the wide river, Veine snuck in closer and pulled out his camera.

The wolf fed on the doe as she continued to bawl. Wolf researcher Dr. Durward Allen has recorded that wolves are not the quick, clean killers some people believe. Allen’s research has demonstrated that wolves will typically kill by literally tearing their prey apart. When a pack is involved the killing process is often quick, but even then sometimes takes a while. All that’s required is that the prey holds still enough for the eating process to begin.

The deer tried to escape many times, but with her hind legs ripped up, the wolf easily knocked her back down every time. Dr. David Mech, a wolf researcher from Minnesota, told me that wolves typically attack deer and other prey from the rear in an attempt to immobilize the hind legs. As I watched the struggling doe, I recalled a National Geographic video entitled Wolves: A Legend Returns to Yellowstone that shows wolves attacking and bringing down lots of elk and other big game in this manner.

Whenever the deer attempted to escape her tormentor the wolf would bite her on the face and neck, forcing her back down. The wolf never made any overt attempt to kill her. “Wolves will often pull down deer and other big game and begin feeding on them before they are dead. A wolf’s first concern is his stomach. They do not have feelings like a human and they are not capable of caring if a prey animal suffers,” says Dr. Mech.

The wolf frequently broke off his attack to cautiously check his surroundings. The sound of the deer’s bawling seemed to make him nervous. The area contains a robust bear population and I figured he was afraid the doe’s distress calls would attract one to the scene. Bears have been known to steal wolf kills and even kill wolves on rare occasions.

Several times the wolf left the scene, once for more than an hour. “What you witnessed was rather typical fall wolf behavior. During the fall, deer are in peak physical condition and widespread, making them difficult prey. That’s when wolves will typically hunt for deer alone to cover more ground, although they still share the kill with the pack. The wolf was probably going back to a rendezvous area to look for other members of the pack,” Dr. Mech told me.

During the encounter, I was able to sneak to a position directly across the river. My distance from the wolf was about 100 yards. The camera I used was a sub-compact Canon Powershot G6. This camera has a modest zoom lens, but the 7.1 megapixels camera set on the highest resolution did a fair job of capturing the action. I would have liked to have been able to get closer, but also realize that horning in on a wolf with his kill is not a prudent move.

The wolf finally left and didn’t return, leaving the deer still very much alive. My gut reaction was to put an end to the deer’s suffering. I’m a realist though. By the time I happened upon the attack the deer’s fate had already been sealed. Should the wolf catch my scent around the kill, it might have abandoned the deer for good, which would have been a senseless waste of the resource. Besides, had I interfered, I would have actually been breaking the law. It is illegal to harass a wolf.

At one point I thought the doe had died. She lay in the water without moving for at least 10 minutes. Eventually, when the wolf did not come back through, she picked her head up and looked around. I’m not sure whether she was playing dead or had passed out.

Eventually the deer righted herself and surveyed her wounds. I estimated that the wolf had eaten at least five pounds of flesh along with several pounds of hide and hair. Dr. John Vucetich, a Michigan Tech professor and wolf researcher who has been studying wolves for many years, says “Wolves will often feed on the prime parts first. Those would include the hindquarters and other large muscle groups. Next they go after the internal organs and then the bones. They also typically eat the hide and hair which helps them with their digestion of meat and bone.”

The doe began to drag herself from the icy river water. She was unable to stand. Using her front legs, she inched her way toward the bank. Few people will ever witness the feeding mechanics of wolves. It is a gut wrenching spectacle. “I’ve seen wolves take prey down many times and it still always affects me emotionally every time I see it,” Dr. Vucetich told me. The experience certainly affected me.

As her suffering continued and she struggled toward the bank, I wondered how long it would take for her to succumb to her fate. I shared these photos with Brian Roell, wolf coordinator for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. He was surprised that the deer had not died more quickly from such wounds. “Wolf prey typically dies from shock, which is a loss of blood,” Roell says. From where I sat though, I saw surprisingly little bleeding. It all boils down to luck or chance as to when a wolf happens to bite into a major blood vessel that will cause enough blood loss.

Eventually the deer struggled onto the bank where I watched her for quite some time, wondering if the wolf would return. I’ve witnessed multiple cases of wolves killing more than they can eat, which is referred to as surplus killing by wolf biologists. “Surplus killing is like a short circuit in the wolf and typically occurs when their prey is malnourished and deep snow conditions make them easy targets. Surplus killings rarely happen during the fall,” Dr. Vucetich says.

Eventually I decided to leave. I couldn’t watch any more. When I rose from my hide, the deer spotted me and simply stared. I returned the next morning at daybreak armed with a long-lens camera. The deer was gone. Later I slipped into waders and forged the swift current, but the deer was nowhere to be seen.

A photograph of the tracks that were at the attack site. A wolf biologist that I shared my photos with erroneously identified the predator as a coyote at first glance. The tracks were 3 1/2 inches wide and 4 1/2 inches long. The largest coyote tracks will measure perhaps 2 1/2 inches long. I later recovered the jaw-bone from the doe, which indicated she was at least 2 1/2 years old. In that region, adult does will typically weigh 130 to 150 pounds during the fall. Comparing the size of the deer to the wolf leaves little doubt as to the species of the predator, Canis lupus (Gray Wolf). (OutdoorLife.com)

Thank you.

Canis lupus

2008-07-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. — Matthew 7:15–20

For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. — Acts 20:29–31

Yesterday’s photograph of the doe nursing her two newborn fawns is a lovely as it gets. Today, however, it’s back to real life and a visual lesson for all the pastors out there following this blog.

Our Lord Jesus Christ does not employ the “wolf” metaphor for entertainment or serrated purposes. Anyone who has seen predators operate in the Church, as I have, knows that He meant it literally. The following video captures a wolf pack hunting a herd of caribou in northern Canada. Be advised it’s not a happy ending:

Here are a few observations off the top of my head:

Notice that the wolf pack “shadows” the caribou herd. In other words, they’re hunting.

Notice that, when they make their move, they’re goal is to break up the herd in order to isolate prey, which is almost always the weakest or most vulnerable of the herd.

Once they isolate the prey, they ruthlessly pursue it and it’s just a matter of time.

No one can help the prey. The herd leaves it to its tragic end.

When the wolf brings down the prey, it has no sense of sympathy or empathy for its suffering (wolves oftentimes devour their prey alive, not bothering to kill it first) — they only understand their physical hunger.

One final observation: When the elders of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) learned of Steven Sitler’s horrifying crimes, they immediately warned the flock by identifying him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” When Douglas Wilson learned of Steven Sitler’s horrifying crimes, he immediately concealed it from the church and labored diligently to insure his safe reintroduction into the flock where he preyed.

These facts say it all for “by their fruits you will know them.”

Thank you.

Glory!

2008-07-15T11:38:00.000-07:00

The voice of the LORD makes the deer give birth,
And strips the forests bare;
And in His temple everyone says, “Glory!” — Psalm 29:9

Taking a few moments away from fully documenting the full-time corruption you know where, and continuing with our Open-line Tuesday, a friend sends this over. If you look closely, that doe is nursing two fawns; you can tell by the two bushy tails pointing upwards and the eight or ten legs down below. Either that or he Photoshopped it:

Glory, indeed.

Thank you.

Open-line Tuesday

2008-07-15T06:40:00.000-07:00

We received a suggestion/request to juxtapose copies of Wilson’s quotation advocating the death penalty for pedophiles from his book Fidelity next to his letter to Judge John Stegner pleading him to limit the sentence for serial pedophile Steven Sitler. His use of the word “urge” kills me. Exactly why would he urge the judge to limit Sitler’s penal judgment? He answers this question in his last sentence: “I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.” Notice his use of the word “this”: “He will continue to deal with this. . .” It’s a euphemism for “serial pedophilia.” I suppose it’s his version of a soft answer turning away wrath.

Regardless, here is page 85 from the book Fidelity, by Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, and page 2 of his letter to Judge Stegner. I encourage all of our new readers as well as you lurkers to reconcile these two positions:

Thank you.

The End of the Trinity Fest Part 4: “celebration as a central component in the culture wars”

2008-07-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

In reflecting upon the untimely and unannounced demise of the Trinity Fest, we have considered the rather novel approach to history that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, has taught himself; and we have seen his remarkable efforts at concealing from Kult, community, and all his potential recruits the existence of a serial pedophile, who had his way with the lambs of the flock for 18 months as Wilson fought one culture war after another, starting with the vital doctrine of chattel slavery as they practiced it in the antebellum South. In our third installment we witnessed an incredible stroke of providence that defies the imagination: Two days before Wilson secretly pled with Judge John Stegner to show leniency on Steven Sitler, a Latah County magistrate issued an arrest warrant for one of Wilson’s Greyfriars disciples for sexual abuse of a minor.

The timing of these two events — Wilson’s secret letter to Stegner and the arrest warrant for Jamin Wight — in conjunction with the first annual Trinity Fest is mind-boggling.[1] And I suppose this is a supreme advantage of hosting a fully documented anonymous attack blog. I mean, think about it. If I didn’t fully document these facts, would you have believed me about these two predators? If you didn’t see duplicates of the original documents with your very eyes, would you have believed it possible for so much sin and iniquity to overrun such a “formidable” church pastored by the man chosen (and “anointed”) by God to call the evangelical church out of her exile?

The answer to these questions probably accounts for Wilson’s bizarre pastoral decisions — i.e. his cover-ups — during these dreadful calamities. If you want the world to believe that your church is “formidable” and “potent,” it behooves you to hide its flaws, such as two convicted child molesters, even if it’s to the detriment of your congregation, which was the case here. Wilson never warned his flock about predation; he never stood before his church to identify these two criminals as predators; and he waited until both of his criminal-disciples had run their courses through the court system before he ever said anything to his congregation. He made sure everything was all sewn up nice and tidy before delivering extremely limited comments about them. He couldn’t let anyone, not even his own sheep, know about his weak spots. And as long as we’re on it, I wonder if he teaches this cover-up technique in his Greyfriars Hall ministerial classes — you know, “Cover-up 101: How to Conceal the Existence of Dangerous Criminals From Your Flock.” After all, what they don’t know can’t hurt ’em — right? These facts are beside the point, however, because the point is that he’s leading the 21st-century church into a new reformation, and what’s more important — protecting the children in your care or calling the Church to repentance? Let me ask it another way: what’s a greater priority — fulfilling the duties of a pastor or pretending to be a modern-day prophet?

If you think you’re a prophet, then I suppose pastoral duties take the back seat to the higher calling of a prophet. And if you take his blog post titled “Extended Deadline” at face value, then you must conclude that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, really believes that God appointed him to some kind of modern-day prophetic office so that he could call the evangelical church out of her exile. Moreover, Wilson really believed the Trinity Fest would be the means to call the church out of her exile. Okay, sure, it sounds crazy, but then so does all the child-molester stuff. Sounding crazy, however, doesn’t make it untrue. Read for yourself:

The reason for Trinity Fest in the first place has not been to have just a [sic] another random party, but to do so in the context of calling the evangelical church out of her exile. Repentance and joy are not mutually exclusive, but rather go together like ham and eggs. But of course I am not talking about the grim joy of the pietist, or the macabre repentance of the self-absorbed. I am talking about the joy of those who have realized that individualistic autonomy is a death trap, the joy of those who have been brought out of darkness into the perfect law of liberty. (“Extended Deadline”)

“The reason for Trinity Fest in the first place . . .” At some level Wilson believed that God called him to this extra-biblical office of orchestrating the Trinity Fest to call the Church to repent of its sins. Obviously God’s call on his life placed him in a gut-wrenching moral dilemma though: Either he must obey God and call the Church out of her exile, or he must pastor his congregation through the agony caused by two child molesters. Douglas Wilson took the high road — he obeyed God. And I seriously doubt he ever thought twice about it. In fact, a cursory glance at his blog post shows that the mighty man of God cleverly redefined the word “repentance” to purge all sorrow and remorse from it. It was party time.

We cannot forget, however, that the prophet Wilson was throwing a party even though “God’s hand of judgment” was heavy on Christ Church, at least according to Wilson’s standards:

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. (Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man [Moscow: Canon Press, 1999] 82, 83)

I don’t think that rape can get much more violent than when a grown man physically violates a helpless infant, as in this case, which Steven Sitler repeated over and over again for 18 months on numerous children in Christ Church, Moscow (in writing this, I do not intend to disparage the awful pain of any rape victim; I only want to note the profound vulnerability of these dear children and the unspeakable aggression perpetrated against them). These historical facts bring us to one of Wilson’s sales pitches for the third annual and final Trinity Fest. I republish the post in entirety sans graphic:

Worship Right, Work Hard, Study Deep, and Play Harder
Topic: Shameless Appeals
One of the measurments [sic] for God’s blessings we can use around here is how many times I am compelled to resort to making a Shameless Appeal. When I first added that category to this blog, it was occasionally used, but now it seems to me that I am always telling or reminding you about something or other. This one has to do with our third annual Trinity Fest.

One reminder, and then the appeal. Reminder: the date for getting the early registration rates is June 15, which is a week from this Friday.

The appeal is this. One of the emphases that we have sought to cultivate in our ministry here is the idea of celebration as a central component in the culture wars. We do this directly when we hold Sabbath dinners in our homes, and when we worship the Lord on His day in covenant renewal. But we also do this indirectly, when our celebrations as a worshipping community spill out into public. This is what Trinity Fest is designed to display, and to do. We want to be neo-Puritans — not the Puritans of the common caricature, or those neo-Puritans who want to revive the dour caricature. We want to be Puritans in the “worship right, work hard, study deep, and play harder” category.

The first two celebrations of Trinity Fest have been wonderful, and we are looking forward to the third being the same kind of thing. We wish you were coming. But you haven’t registered yet. I checked.
Posted by Douglas Wilson — 6/6/2007 1:20:23 PM | Link to this post

In this post Wilson put the stamp of Puritan nobility on the subject of “culture wars” and tied those wars to the Trinity Fest:

One of the emphases that we have sought to cultivate in our ministry here is the idea of celebration as a central component in the culture wars. . . But we also do this indirectly, when our celebrations as a worshipping community spill out into public. This is what Trinity Fest is designed to display, and to do.

I must confess, however, that the only wars he’s ever fought in Moscow had nothing to do with the typical culture wars of the Christian right. Wilson limited his battles to defending the biblical rights of antebellum slaveholders to mansteal; resisting his legal obligation to pay property tax; violating the Zoning Code in the heart of downtown Moscow; and threatening the Latah County Commissioners (I wonder if, when he threatened the commissioners, he meant to threaten physical harm against them or some sort of legal action; perhaps he could draw us a picture). Oh, and maybe some of that middle-aged “pendulous-bellied” Trinitarian skylarking, which the Bible calls sinful folly. Obviously none of these scandals are your standard right-wing hot-button “culture war” issues. In fact, to the extent that Wilson lost each and every one of these battles, his defeats were to the improvement of Moscow. This is because they were “Doug’s wars” not “culture wars.” Regardless, in this blog post he raises the specter of celebrating in public while waging culture war. This was a polite way of saying that for one week each year he really wanted to gloat in the face of his enemies, the so-called intoleristas, as his one-man carnival in the name of the Trinity stretched far and wide across city limits.

But there’s a terribly sick irony here that you cannot miss if you ever want to understand his psychosis. Pastor Douglas Wilson wanted to celebrate in public as he waged culture war against his neighbors in Moscow, but he wanted to do this in the same hour that God’s hand of judgment weighed heavily on the culture that Wilson planted at Christ Church, Moscow. Don’t be confused. There are not two things happening here, only one. It’s inner fantasy vs. external reality. And the reality is that there is no culture war in the community of Moscow, despite Douglas Wilson’s inner fantasy and his endless blustering. The only culture war is inside Christ Church. Its citizens have turned on one another in the most horrible way possible — rape. Even worse, its pastor responded to these attacks by defending the rapists. To be sure, he defended the most fearful predators known to society — pedophiles and child molesters — every mother’s worst nightmare. He never warned his church about these criminals; he simply welcomed them back into the fold. And he defended these evildoers because he needed to reintroduce them back into the covenant community as smoothly and as quietly as possible so that no one would know the true state of his church — he needed to cover it up. But by hiding them and their iniquity he insured the complete destruction of the culture he planted at Christ Church. In short, when Wilson covered-up for the two rapists, he declared war against his own congregation. So while he invited the Christian church to celebrate with him in Moscow as he waged culture war, the sick reality is that the celebration could only take place because he waged culture war against Christ Church.

Douglas Wilson pretends he’s a prophet calling the church out of her exile, but the reality is that God has exiled him to a world of delusions. He redefines repentance to look like Fat Tuesday, but the reality is that he needs to repent in sackcloth and ashes if he would ever see the kingdom of God. He celebrates his personal wars against his “enemies” in the center of town, but the reality is that he had to make enemies of his sheep before he could fight his other “enemies.” The mad prophet is so blind that he cannot see the culture he planted is completely disintegrating before his very eyes and it’s falling apart because of him. As I said, it’s a sick irony, because in the end the Fearless Leader fiddled as the lambs of his flock passed through the fire.

Thank you.

[1] For those of you just joining us or if you need a refresher, here is the documented timeline of events:

Winter 2004 – Spring 2005 — Christ Church announces the Trinity Fest.

March 11, 2005 — Douglas Wilson learns that a serial pedophile preyed upon his flock for 18 months.

July 7, 2005 — Steven Sitler pleads guilty to one count of Lewd Conduct With a Minor Under Sixteen Years of Age.

July 24, 2005 — Douglas Wilson parades Kult children before the community and declares his sect “formidable.”

August 8–11, 2005 — Christ Church hosts the first annual Trinity Fest in Moscow, Idaho.

“Trinity Fest 2005, Day One”

“Trinity Fest 2005, Day Two”

“Trinity Fest 2005, Day Three”

“Trinity Fest 2005, Day Four”

“Trinity Fest 2005, Day Five”

August 17, 2005 — A Latah County magistrate issues an arrest warrant for Greyfriars student Jamin Wight.

August 19, 2005 — Douglas Wilson asks Judge Stegner to show leniency on Steven Sitler.

And during this whole period no one at Christ Church knew about Sitler or the damage he wrought.

“Forever Seventeen”

2008-07-10T18:02:00.000-07:00

A former member of the Kult once told me that when she looks back at her tenure in Moscow, she sees that they put enormous pressure on her to conform her life to Nancy Wilson’s, and since she believed that Nancy Wilson was the perfect wife, she gladly complied. Now that she’s out, however, she sees the big picture much more clearly. In hindsight she says that conformity was really more like a straightjacket that she daily tailored to her body, so that she could not be herself anymore — she had to be Nancy. She said it got to the point that her straightjacket squeezed the life (and liberty) of Christ out of her — because Doug & Nancy are perfect. Thankfully, that family escaped Christ Church, Moscow, and they have rediscovered true freedom in Christ.

That true story segues to a post by the Iron Rose of Moscow. Once again we see that the Wilsons hopelessly conflict their mind-numbed disciples: Should a woman roll on her husband, as per this instruction, or should the helpmeet play dumb meat? And I wonder what the Wilsons would say about A Christ Church Wife? Actually, I know the answer to that question. Wilson set precedent a couple of years ago when he suspected that a wife was not loyal to the Kult — he executed the family in a high-profile termination.

Anyway, this woman knocks me out: read “Forever Seventeen” and picture in your mind’s eye a “pendulous-bellied, bearded, over-fifty-year-old man engaged in Trinitarian skylarking.” Maybe he’ll be so kind as to draw us a picture.

Thank you.

Post Script: in the last paragraph Rosemary mentions the “backyard turned into a bulldozed subdivision,” which is a highly public scandal that I have not broached yet. In short, Wilson has not limited his empire building to hijacking churches into the CREC or coveting all of downtown Moscow for his glory. He and a few investment partners (which I believe includes his in-laws) had the Wilson’s backyard re-platted to construct a gated community of cookie-cutter shacks on what is currently a bulldozed mess.

“That’s Doug”

2008-07-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

A couple of months ago a friend called to observe that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, has successfully conditioned people across the country to create a special category, just for him, to accept his sin with a wink and nod, instead of delivering to him the appropriate biblical response. This is an excellent point that deserves everyone’s undivided attention, and I submit yesterday’s post to you as Exhibit A to help establish that this special category exists.

The Moscow–Pullman Daily News quoted Doug Wilson ascribing the word “nigger” to the Son of God because, according to Wilson, the Lord Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point or else He was simply using a racial insult.

If this front-page story had appeared with any other pastor’s name attached to it, the Christian church and the general population would have risen up with a unanimous voice to condemn the reprobate responsible for the blasphemy. And make no mistake: twisting Scripture to place a racial slur on the lips of the Savior of the world is blasphemy:

Question 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are . . . misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines . . . the maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.

But when Wilson blasphemes, people shrug their shoulders and say, “That’s Doug,” as though those two words justify and account for what would be intolerably reprehensible behavior from anyone else.

I have more evidence to support this theory of the “special category,” which is part of a larger post. For now, however, I simply wanted to feed the hamster in your brains. And don’t get me wrong, as disgusted and appalled as he makes me, I take comfort knowing that “the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain . . . especially because he will be so far from acquitting and sparing the transgressors of this commandment, as that he will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment, albeit many such escape the censures and punishments of men.”

Thank you.

A Book Review

2008-07-08T15:29:00.000-07:00

U P D A T E : I forgot to note that the citation below from A Serrated Edge that uses the word “nigger” actually made the front page of the Moscow–Pullman Daily News back in 2003 as Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal was getting red hot (you can read it here). We noted this fact very early in our “DUMB & Tan” series, but it’s worth repeating since we have so many new readers.

Found this on amazon.com (HT: Mary Louise). Man, I wish I could write this succinctly:

Blasphemy
By A Customer

This book firmly establishes Douglas Wilson’s utter contempt for all that is holy — especially the Lord Jesus Christ. Two quotes should suffice to prove the point.

Paraphrasing the Lord’s answer to the woman of Canaan in Matthew 15, Wilson writes,

“Jesus was not above using ethnic humor to make His point either. . . . Put in terms that we might be more familiar with, Jesus was white, and the disciples were white, and this black woman comes up seeking healing, for her daughter. . . She comes up and beseeches Christ for healing. ‘It’s not right,’ He says, ‘to give perfectly good white folk food to “ni##ers.”’ . . If this understanding is right, then Jesus was using a racial insult to make a point. If it is not correct, then He was simply using a racial insult.” (pp. 43, 44)

Well, it is not correct, and your mother should have washed your mouth out with soap.

Then commenting on Philippians 3:8, Wilson writes, “We simply cannot imagine the lofty sentiment of this wonderful passage (e.g., the ‘excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord’) functioning in the same sentence with dog sh*t.” (p. 62)

Well, we couldn’t imagine it until you suggested it.

Naturally, Wilson’s contempt for God shows itself, by extension, in his disdain for God’s people. In fact A Serrated Edge is Wilson’s justification for the mean-spirited way that he treats others. Here is the sum total of his argument: “God has divided the world between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, and since that time ridicule has been inescapable.” And from this absurd declaration, Wilson argues that Scripture invites him to mock and ridicule believers and non-believers alike. He even calls it a “gift” and a “movement of the Spirit.”

Wilson shows his instinctive menace as well. Consider the number of times he used the following words or variations of them: “attack,” 35 times; “offend,” 20 times; “ridicule,” 17 times; “insult,” 14 times; and of course the singular gratuitous uses of “dog sh*t,” “cr@p,” “a%%,” and “ni##er.”

But for all his potty mouth, Wilson never mentions the “Golden Rule,” and he fails to ask the one important question: What would the Church look like if believers treated one another the way Wilson does?

Wilson “comes out” in this book. He would not have anyone confuse him for a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is wolf to the bone, and these pages reveal his fangs for all to behold. “Proud and haughty, scorner is his name.” (Prov. 21:24.)

If you buy this book, hide it from your children. Hide it, that is, until the day when God visits Wilson with calamity. And then teach them something that Wilson never learned: God is not mocked. (A Customer, November 2, 2003)

HT: Mary Louise

Thank you.

CHORTLE

2008-07-07T18:20:00.000-07:00

I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

Thank you.

The End of the Trinity Fest Part 3: “calling the evangelical church out of her exile”

2008-07-06T18:58:00.001-07:00

In our previous installment we considered some of the controversy that preceded the first annual Trinity Fest by comparing the image of Christ Church, Moscow, that Pastor Douglas Wilson projected for others to see with the actual state of his church that he desperately didn’t want anyone to see, i.e. his inner fantasy of him leading an almighty kirk as opposed to the external reality that a serial pedophile had just ravaged the little ones of his congregation who were under his (Wilson’s) care. Indeed, his inner fantasy militated so strongly against external reality that he never bothered to warn the parents of his congregation that predation may have occurred. Rather, he blustered, “We are formidable,” as he bragged that the infants of his congregation hit the hard stuff during the Lord’s Supper, calling this use of the Table “potent.”

And each day during the first annual Trinity Fest he used Blog and Mablog to give a blow-by-blow account of the festivities, as part of his self-promotion package. He pushed hard to impose his inner fantasy on the world, despite reality, and he really wanted people to believe that Christ Church, Moscow, was leading the reform of Christian culture at the community level. He wanted his followers to believe, with him, that the world dreaded his awe-inspiring kirk because they were the cutting edge of Christian culture. He certainly would not have anyone know that they were the essence of a disintegrating culture, at least by his own written standards. After all, he was the brilliant light who just a few years earlier wrote this Caiaphas-like prophecy for all the world to read:

Violent rape is a judgment of God upon a people. . . This does not justify the perpetrators; it is simply the recognition that when disaster befalls a city, sexual disaster for the women is part of this. This does not mean that a woman who is raped should assume any personal responsibility for it; she is innocent. . . Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture, and individual women who are part of that culture are included in the judgment. But this does not mean that they as individuals “deserved” it. . . . We see the same judgment at work in disintegrating cultures: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8:11). Here the rape is not being perpetrated by foreign soldiers, but is the result of citizens turning on one another. Every culture is a gathering of sinners, and so rape is always a possibility. But when God’s hand of judgment is heavy upon a people, women are in far greater danger of sexual assault than at other times. (Douglas Wilson, Fidelity: What It Means To Be a One-Woman Man [Moscow: Canon Press, 1999] 82, 83)

I don’t think it’s possible for a worse visitation to strike a church than a serial pedophile raping its most defenseless members, and I don’t think it’s possible for a so-called pastor to demonstrate nonfeasance any better than Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, who hid this awful fact from the world so that he could pretend his formidable worship assembly was hosting a Trinitarian carnival. To be sure, his dereliction crossed the line from nonfeasance to malfeasance. By his standard God’s hand of judgment was heavy on the Kirk — two citizens of their own had turned on their babies, infants, and children, to rape them. These crimes took place for over two years, as the Fearless Leader led his formidable army from scandal to scandal — imprecatory prayers, Southern Slavery, property-tax conflicts, zoning wars, verbal threats against the Latah County Commissioners, etc., not to mention the national scandal in the Reformed church known as the Federal Vision. I’m sure that when he learned about Steven Sitler’s predations he justified it in his mind as some sort of inconsequential collateral damage. After all, everybody knows that serial pedophiles regularly wreak havoc on “formidable” churches. It’s part of St. Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 12. So on August 11, 2005, the last day of the first annual Trinity Fest, he finished his summary of the day’s events by writing,

Glitches here and there, but over all, we were extremely grateful to God for the success of the first annual Trinity Fest. (“Trinity Fest 2005, Day Five”; emphasis original)

Yes, he was “extremely grateful to God for the success of the first annual Trinity Fest.” But exactly eight days later, or Trinity Fest 2005, Day Thirteen, he had to leave his inner fantasy for a few moments to deal with reality so that he could express his gratitude for something else. Steven Sitler was still at his parent’s home in Colville, WA, waiting for Judge Stegner to sentence him for his crimes, and someone (we don’t know who) compelled the Fearless Leader to write a letter to the judge on behalf of the serial pedophile. He closed it with similar expressions of gratitude:

I am grateful Steven was caught, and am grateful he has been brought to account for these actions so early in his life. I am grateful that he will be sentenced for his behavior, and that there will be hard consequences for him in real time. At the same time, I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society. (August 19, 2005)

Of course, he wrote and sent this letter in secret, without his flock’s knowledge or consent (I seriously doubt the Kult elders even knew about it). But God is not mocked because according to the Fearless Leader’s standards “Violent rape is God’s judgment on a culture,” despite Wilson’s gratitude for Sitler’s capture. And just because Wilson concealed, denied, and suppressed the truth about his disintegrating culture didn’t mean it wasn’t putrid — rotten to the core — it just meant that Wilson was ripe for another judgment. We know this because on August 17, 2005, two days before Wilson wrote his secret letter to Judge Stegner, a Latah County magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Jamin Wight. If you’re keeping track (and I know that swimming through this filth gets complicated), that’s Trinity Fest 2005, Day Eleven. The accusation against Wight stated:

SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD, Idaho Code 18-1506 and LEWD CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, Idaho Code 18-1508, Idaho Code 18-6608, Felonies in THREE (3) COUNTS, have been committed. . . (Arrest Warrant for Jamin Wight, August 17, 2005)

We have no idea exactly when Wilson learned about Wight’s arrest, but we do know it was before September 1, 2005, which is the date that Pastor Wilson wrote a letter to the victim’s father threatening him with discipline. I suppose that would be Trinity Fest 2005, Day Twenty-Six. Regardless, the same lightning bolt struck the Fearless Leader twice in less than five months, and you would think that the discovery of two child molesters in less than five months would weigh heavily on a pastor. To be sure, you would think this would be sufficient cause of action for a man to examine himself, his ministry, and his calling. You know, some of that “morbid introspection” the Fearless Leader despises so much. After all, these rapes took place under his nose. In fact, they took place at the exact same time that he crossed hill and dale to obtain an apology for imaginary offenses that he believed the University of Idaho committed against him. Personally, I believe that if a man has time to demand an apology, he has time to guard the flock. Or something like that.

This brings us to one of Beelzeblog’s entries announcing the second annual Trinity Fest (2006). As you read this, please remember that by this time Wilson knew about both of his sex offenders. I republish it in entirety:

Extended Deadline
Topic: Shameless Appeals
The last time I did this, a discussion broke out over whether we ought to cancel Trinity Fest. With this shameless appeal, because I am running that risk yet again, let me begin by showing the consistency between repentance of sin and rejoicing before the Lord. The reason for Trinity Fest in the first place has not been to have just a [sic] another random party, but to do so in the context of calling the evangelical church out of her exile. Repentance and joy are not mutually exclusive, but rather go together like ham and eggs. But of course I am not talking about the grim joy of the pietist, or the macabre repentance of the self-absorbed. I am talking about the joy of those who have realized that individualistic autonomy is a death trap, the joy of those who have been brought out of darkness into the perfect law of liberty. The emphasis that follows is mine.

And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law. Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength. So the Levites stilled all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved. And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them (Neh. 8:9–12).

That said, we never for a second intended to cancel anything. But for various reasons, we have decided to extend the early registration deadline by one week to Friday, June 23rd. But also, because everything we do is in a highly charged, politicized atmosphere, we know that to do something as simple as this will cause some bad guys to chortle and say, “Aha! They are struggling. Registrations must be down. Look at them! Extending deadlines!” But actually, registrations are rocking right along, and we are on track to be a bigger and better celebration than last year. And so if you want to join us at the early registration prices, you have an additional week to do so. Just working with you all is all.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 6/16/2006 12:46:36 PM | Link to this post

Before we consider the self-proclaimed “prophetic” aspect of this post, let me note the obvious in the interest of a good chortle: Instead of simply extending the deadline for whatever reason (and he had no obligation to give a reason), he had to wax defensive about the extension and stick it in his “enemies’” faces:

The last time I did this, a discussion broke out over whether we ought to cancel Trinity Fest. With this shameless appeal, because I am running that risk yet again. . . . That said, we never for a second intended to cancel anything. But for various reasons, we have decided to extend the early registration deadline by one week to Friday, June 23rd. But also, because everything we do is in a highly charged, politicized atmosphere, we know that to do something as simple as this will cause some bad guys to chortle and say, “Aha! They are struggling. Registrations must be down. Look at them! Extending deadlines!” But actually, registrations are rocking right along, and we are on track to be a bigger and better celebration than last year. And so if you want to join us at the early registration prices, you have an additional week to do so. Just working with you all is all.

As he indicates, he wrote this part of the post with an eye on his so-called “enemies” (that would be the “bad guys”) in Moscow who thought as much about the Trinity Fest as they did the History Conference. He calls them “intoleristas” (I don’t remember if it’s a proper noun). He knew locals followed his blog for these types of announcements because Blog and Mablog was his familiar medium to communicate with his disciples, and so he had to downplay the obvious meaning of the extension. He had to huff and puff. He had to act as though the situation wasn’t what it appeared, i.e. the Trinity Fest was not the rip-roaring success that he expected. This is a critical point because one of his stated goals for the Trinity Fest was for it to be so big that people would like him even less. I realize that’s not a particularly ambitious objective and most Christians would find it difficult to reconcile with the evangel, but that’s how he advertised it (we shall consider this remarkable aim in an upcoming post). He hoped his carnival would canvass so much of the city that its very presence would offend everyone who didn’t share his imperious vision of taking over Moscow, or roughly 96% of the population.

Consequently, when registrations for the Trinity Fest didn’t add up as he expected, he had to stick his chest out and pretend otherwise. And “pretend” is the operative term because according to “Trinity Fest 2005, Day Three,” they served “about 850” souls for St. Brigid’s Feast, whereas in 2006 (the year of the post in question), “Trinity Fest Day One/Pictures” states that they served 760 at St. Brigid’s Feast. By my count, they were down pert near 100 people or roughly 9%. That’s worth a harrumph and chortle in my book because, “Aha! They WERE struggling and registrations WERE down!” They were not “rocking right along” and they were not “on track to be a bigger and better celebration than last year.” And once again we see his inner fantasy resisting against external reality. He could not distinguish between them. Self-deception became public deception. Harrumph, chortle, and roll on the floor laughing. Two years later the annual Trinity Fest went the way of all flesh. They canceled it.

Please notice, however, as I stop to chortle once more, that he’s the one who put such a high premium on head count. I could care less. In fact, I’m just evangelical enough to believe that where two or three are gathered together in Christ’s name, He is there in the midst. But, nooooooo, they had to have a million-man march. They had to make a pronounced statement of their greatness, their formidability, and their dominance. And their church of 900 souls (that’s the number he publishes) couldn’t even break a thousand for its annual celebration, which is worth a least one more chortle.

Now to point: The blog post under consideration (“Extended Deadline”) explained the reason for the Trinity Fest:

Let me begin by showing the consistency between repentance of sin and rejoicing before the Lord. The reason for Trinity Fest in the first place has not been to have just a [sic] another random party, but to do so in the context of calling the evangelical church out of her exile. Repentance and joy are not mutually exclusive, but rather go together like ham and eggs. But of course I am not talking about the grim joy of the pietist, or the macabre repentance of the self-absorbed. I am talking about the joy of those who have realized that individualistic autonomy is a death trap, the joy of those who have been brought out of darkness into the perfect law of liberty.

Let me remind you of the context of this post in case you forgot it with all the chortling. God sent two child molesters to Christ Church, Moscow, as judgment for their sins — to accelerate the disintegration of their culture, at least according to Wilson’s written standards, yet this dark fact notwithstanding he donned the prophet’s mantle to “call the evangelical church out of her exile.” He couldn’t even shepherd a church through two child molesters, let alone warn his congregation, but he thought he could call the Church to repentance, and by an act of self-willed individualistic autonomy he declared the evangelical church in “exile.” I would chortle if it wasn’t so nuts. And please don’t miss this: He then called the evangelical church to come to Moscow (read him) in order to repent. This is not ham and eggs, it’s ham and crazy. He thinks he’s the prophet Daniel when he’s actually Belshazzar defiling the holy things of God and just like Belshazzar he cannot read the writing on the wall, though unlike the Chaldaean king he wrote the writing with his own fingers. Again, he cannot distinguish between his inner fantasy and real life.

Finally, we have one more consideration, which closes the deal. In his book Fidelity Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, cited Ecclesiastes 8:11 as his proof text to establish the principle of “disintegrating cultures”: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Elsewhere in Fidelity he affirmed the death penalty for pedophiles and rapists. But when he had a chance to stand by his written standards, he caved. And this is not about the appropriate punishment for these offenders; it’s about the Fearless Leader’s hypocrisy. Neither Steven Sitler nor Jamin Wight received the punishment due their evil works, at least according to Wilson’s theonomic standards. Both men skated due in large part to his advocacy. He pled for leniency on behalf of both before he ever warned his congregation of the danger they posed. In one instance he even threatened the victim’s father with punishment. In other words, sentence against their evil work was not executed speedily and when compared to death it wasn’t executed at all. And that’s because Wilson’s heart was fully set in him to do evil.

Thank you.

Pastor Ghoul: Brazen Indeed

2008-07-05T07:41:00.000-07:00

Please allow me to call your attention to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s response to the editorial in the Intelligence Report that covered his pedophile problem:

The father of the girl in the second incident told the Intelligence Report that church officials tried to keep that quiet as well. At one point, he said, they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter.

Let’s just say that I have never seen quite so striking an example of a father neglecting his daughter. But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph. This is a father who was willing to talk to Intelligence Report about this particular incident because he doesn’t believe his daughter has been through enough. And the ghouls at SPLC were willing to print it. (“Brazenly Lied About”; emphasis original)

If you can cut past the utter contempt dripping from Wilson’s fingertips, notice his argument.

(A) Wilson has never seen so striking an example of a father’s neglect.

(B) Talking to the Intelligence Report proves the father’s neglect.

I hope someone lets me know if I missed something here, because the unstated premise of Beelzeblog’s argument appears to be one of two points. It’s either (A) Giving media attention to the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect, or (B) Talking to the Intelligence Report about the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect. I think that for the argument to be consistent the premise has to be (A) because the point appears to be that any public attention to the crime constitutes harm to the victim. Of course, Beelzeblog fails to observe that the interview in the IR did not identify the father or the victim, just as he failed to note that the father limited the scope of his comments to Wilson’s pastoral abuse after the crime occurred — threats of church discipline.

These facts notwithstanding, there’s only one point that’s relevant to the argument here. If we grant premise (A) that giving media attention to the crime constitutes paternal neglect, then what should we conclude about Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, after he wrote about the incident on his blog? Put another way, Wilson condemned the father for talking to the IR and he called the folks at the IR “ghouls” for printing the interview; so if they were “ghouls” for printing it, what does that make Wilson for reprinting a large excerpt from the interview and linking to it?

I believe these are fair questions. After all, Wilson blogging on the incident is infinitely worse because of the targeted audience. I don’t know anyone who reads the Intelligence Report, but I know lots of people who read Blog and Mablog. And if media attention causes harm to the victim, then why would the alleged pastor who was overseeing the incident aggravate the victim’s pain by blogging on the subject?

Take it to the next step. If publicity to the crime is drop-dead proof of neglect because it harms the victim, then the CREC (or whatever entity that holds Wilson accountable) should initiate disciplinary proceedings against him immediately, because it’s clear that when he brought even greater publicity to the crime he acted with malice of forethought. As he said, “But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph.” It’s self-evident.

Thank you.

HT: Anon

Eyewitness Testimony

2008-07-03T08:04:00.000-07:00

I received this comment this morning. It’s the testimony of an eyewitness who watched the judge sentence Jamin Wight, and this much is true — when Rosemary Huskey bears witness, you can take it to the bank that every word is true.

Rosemary Huskey said . . .

I was in the courtroom the day that Jamin Wight was sentenced. The judge emphasized Jamin’s remarkable immaturity; he was at least 23-years old when he began molesting a 14-year-old girl under the guise of “courting.” What 23 year old in his right mind wants to foster a romantic/sexual relationship with a 14 year old? The correct answer is, of course, a pedophile. Doug Wilson was also in the courtroom that day. We even exchanged a few words following the sentencing. Mine were strong and to the point, Doug’s were, well, let’s just say he floundered for a response and I didn’t buy it.

The arrested adolescence and huge gaps in emotional development that were obvious to the judge apparently escaped the notice of Doug Wilson and other Kirk luminaries. In addition to being a Greyfriars student, Jamin Wight was a teacher at the Logos-clone all-boy school, Atlas Academy. (At the time the school was operated without a Conditional Use Permit, and without safety inspections, from Jim Wilson’s storefront ministry, in the Nuart Theater. Using the example of Doug Wilson and Nuisance Andrews, the operators of Atlas School simply blew off city ordinances which specifically banned the operation of schools in downtown Moscow. They have subsequently moved into the county where they can operate without interference from local officials and Jamin is no longer a faculty member.)

It’s all about the squeaky-clean covenant image with Doug. His track record of trying to keep the lid on scandal in order to spare himself and the Kirk public embarrassment is sinful as well as useless. What an odious piece of work he is.

Rose Huskey

I neglected to note the glaring age difference between Wight and his victim, which is an extremely aggravating circumstance to his crime. Maybe Beelzeblog could draw us a picture.

Thank you.

The Sunday Funnies

2008-07-02T19:15:00.000-07:00

As long as we’re on it, and we will be on it in our next TF post, here is what the Fearless Leader wrote vis-à-vis rape, disintegrating cultures, and the judgment of God:

Notice how he writes with such authority and unction, as though he really holds these convictions. Notice how he leaves the impression that he is committed to biblical standards and that he fears God.

Now notice this blog post that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, uploaded to Blog and Mablog exactly one week after Jamin Wight’s conviction. I republish it in entirety:

Yes, I Know There Are Many Godly Youth Ministers
Topic: Cartoon

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 5/19/2006 11:27:27 AM | Link to this post

Here’s the real punch line to the cartoon. Wilson concealed Jamin Wight’s crimes from the membership of Christ Church, Moscow, just as he hid Steven Sitler’s predations. Consequently, when he published this clever piece of art (which, by the way, he drew with his own hand; you can confirm this fact in the combox), all of his rabid disciples would have thought he was ridiculing the modern church, as usual, and implying that the Kult was immune from such carnal hustlers.

Again, notice how he leaves the false impression that his cult is above it all. Notice how he doesn’t acknowledge that his highly esteemed pupil who was studying for the ministry just dodged the mother of all bullets for rape, which was the major point of the plea bargain. (The other point was getting tagged as a “Sex Offender” in the State of Idaho; Wight had one of the best criminal attorneys in Moscow. In fact, I’m close with Moscow’s lone capital attorney who tells me that if he ever had to beat a rap, he would retain Wight’s attorney: “He’s a pit bull in court!”)

Back to point: Do you think that Wilson’s cartoon is funny? If the victim saw it, do you think she laughed? If the father whom Wilson threatened with discipline saw it, do you think he got a kick out of it? What kind of message do you think it sent to the victim family? What kind of message did it send to Wight, whom they never disciplined? What kind of message did it send to Wight’s classmates at Greyfriars Hall? Seriously, what happened to all that posturing about “God’s hand of judgment” being “heavy upon a people”? How does this tasteless image comport with Wilson’s written standards? Is there anything funny about “The Sunday Funnies”? You tell me.

Thank you.

Greyfriars Hallmark

2008-07-02T16:10:00.000-07:00

As I write the next post in our “End of the Trinity Fest” series, here is an important website for you to examine. It contains most of the court documents for convicted criminal Jamin Wight, who was one of Wilson’s prized students at Greyfriars Hall when he committed his crimes. Jamin Wight was a member in good standing at Christ Church, Moscow, and Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow (pastored by Dr. Peter Leithart), during his spree and neither church ever put him under discipline.

To be fair, however, I’m not sure why they didn’t graduate him from Greyfriars with honors. He committed no sin that he didn’t learn at the Fearless Leader’s feet. As our Lord says, “A servant is not greater than his master,” and in this case Wight did not exceed his teacher’s example — he matched it. Wilson knows exactly what that means and I’ll leave it there for now. We still have lots more blogging ahead of us.

Wight lived in one of the Kult’s many illegal boarding houses (I don’t believe I’ve gotten near that scandal), which they rely on to house large portions of the student body at New Saint Andrews College (NSA), and he capitalized on his squeaky-clean image as a prospective minister to take advantage of his host family. The most shocking thing about this scandal, however, is not that the Kult did not discipline Wight for his sins — it’s that THEY THREATENED THE FATHER OF THE VICTIM WITH DISCIPLINE. In this interview, the father said,

they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter. “It would be like me getting robbed and the police coming over and arresting me because I didn’t have five locks on the door, only one,” he said. “It was just bizarre.”

One other thing, Jamin Wight spent a summer doing an internship at a now-dissolved CREC church in Southern California. The elders of the church cut his stay short, however, because of improper behavior with a married woman in the church. Apparently the intern made a few late-night visits to her home while the husband was out of town. When the elders discovered this they sent Jamin packing. Again, no discipline. After all, they didn’t want the student to get the wrong impression about sin. Greyfriars Hall is not a ministerial school; it’s a breeding ground for wolves. What else could it be when an alpha wolf leads it?

And the moral of this story is not Jamin Wight’s bankrupt character; it’s that Douglas Wilson corrupts everyone in his sphere of influence; sometimes it’s overt and other times it’s osmosis, but the end result is always the same — a complete loss of moral sensibility in his disciples. They become brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed. They act on impulse, taking whatever they want whenever they want, lacking all sense of right and wrong. In other words, they act just like Wilson.

Read the documents on Greyfriars Hallmark. “Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here.” And add its documents to the mountain of evidence we have been compiling to demonstrate that Christ Church, Moscow, is one big massive sewer of corruption.

Thank you.

The End of the Trinity Fest Part 2: “We are formidable”

2008-07-01T19:01:00.000-07:00

In Part 1 of this miniseries we contemplated the role of fanciful — indeed, truly bizarre — story telling in the first annual Credenda Agenda History Conference, which was the forerunner to the now-defunct annual Trinity Fest. More specifically, we considered the Fearless Leader’s arbitrary and non-objective methodology that licenses him to fabricate stories while ignoring factual history in order to spin a mile-long yarn under the guise of “faithful story telling.” Today we shall consider some of the stories he spun prior to the first annual Trinity Fest and how they reflect the inner workings of his mind.

So when Christ Church, Moscow, announced its agenda for the first annual Trinity Fest (2005), two local activists performed a public-records search and discovered that the Kult had rented the UI’s indoor arena, the Kibbie Dome (seating capacity of 16,000), to host their Sunday worship service and that they intended to serve alcohol for communion to children, including infants. Of course, a venue that seats 16,000 was incredibly ambitious since they only needed to seat 1200 at the most (probably less, but Beelzeblog has never disclosed hard numbers). I’m sure that in Wilson’s mind this was the ecclesiastical equivalent of “build and they will come,” though it was more like “rent and watch yourself get tossed.” Regardless, the Kult’s plan of serving alcohol to minors raised a conflict with state law. Subsections 603 & 604 of Idaho Code Title 23 prohibit anyone from dispensing wine to any person under the age of 21, which includes children and infants. So while state law prohibits minors from drinking alcohol, the Kult planned to violate state law on state-owned property during their Trinity Fest worship service. One of the activists, Rosemary Huskey, notes this fact in one of her Vision 20/20 posts here, and here is one of several posts written by Beelzeblog that responded to these two women’s concern:

Jesus Gives Alcohol to Minors
Topic: The Lord’s Table
As many of You [sic] are aware, some of our local adversaries have officially complained about the worship service we will be having at the Kibbie Dome just before the Trinity Festival. Their complaint centers on the fact that we will be serving alcohol to minors.

For some years, we have been teaching you that our observance of this Supper is potent. We have been saying that the gospel is like wine, and not like grape juice. Grape juice is a fitting element for the modern and moribund church to use — an inert element for an inert sacrament in an insert church. But when God moves to stir His people up, what happens? We return to a biblical observance of this Supper which can be nothing other than a potent declaration.

But there is another issue as well. We have seen that if we were serving grape juice in our communion service, our adversaries would not care — a tame sacrament for a domesticated church.

The second issue is this: if we excluded you, our children, from the service, they would not care either. But because we eat and drink a potent gospel, and because we insist on including our children and grandchildren in this, their glorious inheritance, the whole thing becomes quite formidable.

When was the last time you heard about outsiders caring what was done inside a worship service like this? The whole affair should be greatly encouraging. God has prepared a table for us in the presence of our enemies, and as we sit down to eat and drink, we may know by faith that God is moving in our community in wonderful ways.

We have assumed the center, and we now see our adversaries beginning to recognize that it is what is being done in faithful Christian worship that will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world. It is here we are formidable — and nowhere else.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 7/24/2005 10:00:48 AM |

Putting it gently, this is a psychotic interpretation of events. Here is the distilled argument:

The Kult’s observance of the Lord’s Supper is potent because it is biblical.

The Kult’s adversaries care a great deal about the Kult’s observance of the Supper.

Therefore, the Kult’s observance of the Supper “will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world.”

Obviously it loses its punch when stripped of its rhetorical flair. Nevertheless, let me note a few of Beelzeblog’s misrepresentations and then proceed to my main point.

First, no one “officially complained about the worship service” as Wilson claimed; you may confirm this fact by the Daily News article appended below. In fact, no one “officially complained” about anything. Two women sent an email to the president of the University of Idaho informing him that the Kult planned to violate state law in the Kibbie Dome. In order for them to have filed an “official complaint,” they would have had to notify the State of Idaho Office of Attorney General, the Latah County Prosecutor, or the Moscow Police Department, just as Wilson did when he filed an official complaint because he “wanted to have it documented” with the MPD. In this case, however, two women (one of them a grandmother, I believe) alerted the UI president to Wilson’s illegal plans and the UI president upheld state law by prohibiting Wilson from serving alcohol to minors. But by predicating his argument on a fabricated premise, Wilson gave himself the requisite wiggle-room he needed to arrive at his fantastic conclusion. And it is fantastic.

Second, notice that Beelzeblog accentuated his false premise by asking, “When was the last time you heard about outsiders caring what was done inside a worship service like this?” (emphasis original). Of course, this question makes the Kult’s worship service appear great and mighty, as though “outsiders” actually cared about something other than the issue they raised — i.e., serving alcohol to children on state-owned property — which happened to be the same issue that Wilson completely ignored in his post. Neither woman gave a rip about what the Kult did inside its worship service. They communicated one concern to President White: Douglas Wilson and his band of loyal followers must obey state law on state-owned property because, as usual, Wilson defied the law and acted as though he was above it (“Think Al Capone”).

Third, notice how the Fearless Leader’s imaginary interpretation of events grew with each succeeding paragraph so that he concluded: “we now see our adversaries beginning to recognize that it is what is being done in faithful Christian worship that will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world.” This is quite a leap. To be sure, it’s not a leap of epic proportions; it’s a leap of Fearless Leader proportions. If you follow the argument, he jumps from two citizens elevating their concern about the Kult’s illegal plans to the Kult determining the future of our world.

But the most important misrepresentation in this post is in these sentences:

The second issue is this: if we excluded you, our children, from the service, they would not care either. But because we eat and drink a potent gospel, and because we insist on including our children and grandchildren in this, their glorious inheritance, the whole thing becomes quite formidable.

Notice the tremendous significance Wilson places on the role of children in the worship service, to the point that they could not be excluded from any ritual. Also notice how he postulates an “us vs. them” mentality, casting himself as the Great Protector of children: “if we excluded you, our children, from the service, they would not care either.” This statement is false and beside the point, but the implication is that he — the Fearless Leader — really cared about the children, as proven by his insistence that they partake of wine during the service. Indeed, the principle that children must participate in the alcoholic rite was as important to him as the fermented juice itself. To be sure, his inordinate emphasis on these points appears almost idolatrous. The Lord Jesus asked, “Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?” In this case you could ask, “Which is greater, fermented wine in the cup or the God who sanctifies the element in the cup?” Wilson’s answer to this question is “fermented wine.”

But this question raises an even more important question: “Which is greater, serving wine to children in violation of state law, or insuring the health and safety of every child in the church?” I frame it this way because at the time Wilson proudly paraded Kult children before the community as prized objects who would receive the “glorious inheritance,” he had known about Steven Sitler’s horrifying predations for four months yet he still had not informed the parents in his congregation — i.e. the current possessors of the “glorious inheritance” — that a serial pedophile may have defiled the very children he pretended to defend. Put another way: He deliberately withheld from Kult and community the one vital piece of information that everyone desperately needed to know if they had any chance of discovering if Sitler had preyed upon their child, while he simultaneously insisted that children must drink alcohol during the worship service. Serving alcoholic wine to Kult children was a non-negotiable priority; protecting them from the long-term damage caused by childhood rape was not. It wasn’t even on the radar. (Please remember that apart from divine omniscience or perfect and complete honesty from a psychopath, he had no way of knowing who Sitler raped.)

This fact becomes more poignant when you note the timeline: Just two weeks before Wilson “insist[ed] on including our children and grandchildren in this,” Steven Sitler pled guilty to one count of Lewd Conduct With a Minor Under Sixteen Years of Age (don’t let the one count mislead you; Sitler leveraged the state by agreeing to privately identify his victims in exchange for owning only one count in public). And less than one month after Wilson “insist[ed] on including our children and grandchildren in this,” he wrote a letter to Judge John Stegner, pleading,

I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society.

Wilson implored Judge Stegner to allow the serial pedophile to return to the Christ Church covenant community. Wilson wrote this letter exactly one week after the first annual Trinity Fest ended its festivities and both of these events — Sitler pleading guilty and Wilson pleading with Stegner — took place unbeknownst to his congregation and the community.

Let’s be clear: The man who championed the role of children in his worship assembly concealed the awful fact of a serial pedophile’s predations from the parents of the very children he championed. He even went so far as to ask the judge to show leniency on the pedophile so that he could return to the assembly where he committed his abominations. Wilson did these things in capacity of his office as pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, and HE DID THEM IN SECRET, just as Steven Sitler committed his crimes in secret, which brings us to the heart of Wilson’s psychosis.

Pastor Douglas Wilson completely ignored (denied) the horrifying reality that a ferocious predator (a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” according to his home church in Colville, WA) had laid waste to the lambs in his charge so that he could advance publicly an imaginary fiction that his church was not only not ravaged but “quite formidable.” In other words, he failed to distinguish between his inner fantasy of him leading an almighty kirk and the outside reality that the assembly of souls in his care was a smitten house of lost sheep without a shepherd. It was more important to his ego that the general public saw him flexing his biceps than that he actually use his biceps to protect the little ones in his care, which is one more reason he’s not a pastor. As always, the Fearless Leader was more concerned about his appearance than his substance. And in this respect Wilson treated the victims (and their parents) of serial pedophile Steven Sitler no differently than Sitler himself. Both men used those harmless children as mere objects to gratify their sick perversions. Sitler took pleasure in physically abusing the children and Wilson took pleasure in assembling the children so that he could declare his “potent” formidability to the world: “Look at the size of MY kingdom.” But neither man cared one whit for those poor souls, which brings us to Wilson’s breathtaking conclusion:

We have assumed the center, and we now see our adversaries beginning to recognize that it is what is being done in faithful Christian worship that will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world. It is here we are formidable — and nowhere else. (emphasis original)

Pay close attention to the last sentence: “It is here we are formidable — and nowhere else.” Despite the missing punctuation between the first two clauses, I’m not sure there’s any way to misinterpret the sentence. When he writes, “It is here,” the antecedent to the word “It” is “faithful Christian worship that will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world.” In the least these words affirm his conviction that the worship at Christ Church, Moscow, would determine the future of the world.

The next clause, “we are formidable,” alludes to his previous statement that their formidability was due to his insistence “on including our children and grandchildren in this,” and since he repeated his use of the word “formidable” we should assume he meant it literally:

causing fear, dread, or apprehension formidable prospect
having qualities that discourage approach or attack
tending to inspire awe or wonder (Merriam Webster Online)

“We are formidable.” Even if it was true (and it’s not), I cannot explain why a professing minister of the gospel would make such a ridiculous boast unless he perceived his congregation as an army of soldiers beneath his command, prepared to conquer all “adversaries” in its path. “We are formidable.” Whatever else is true, these are not the words of a peacemaker (i.e. a “son of God,” Matt. 5:9); they are the blustering taunt of an angry, insecure bully: “WE ARE FORMIDABLE.”

Finally, the clause “and nowhere else” modifies the first clause, “It is here” (emphasis original), to exclude everywhere else in the world. In other words, the Fearless Leader singled out Christ Church, Moscow, as the ONLY place where the “It” was taking place, and he defined the “It” as “faithful Christian worship that will determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world.”

Behold the madness. “And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” His inner fantasy could not recognize the external reality. The Fearless Leader sold (and his blog post was a sales pitch) his liturgy as a world-changing event while he concealed from the world the truth about his church. He refused to acknowledge the true state of his congregation, which was directly connected to his sacerdotalism, at least according to his theology, so that he could insist that the Kult’s form of worship — led by him — would “determine the future of our town, our state, our nation, and our world.” To say that he had high expectations for the Trinity Fest is an understatement. But the only noteworthy event in Moscow during the summer of 2005 was the Fearless Leader’s desperate attempts to keep his two child molesters hidden from the public eye.

The Trinity Fest did not die because of economic pressures. It died the slow, reluctant death of a man suffocated underneath a mountain of lies packaged as history and an unspeakable millstone named Steven Sitler. It died because one man confused the bishopric with the battlefield and could not discern the difference between children and soldiers. The Trinity Fest died because God is not mocked and men reap what they sow. If you’re going to sell your carnival as THE event for the kingdom of heaven, you better be sure you understand the basics, such as not offending the little ones, because it doesn’t matter if you serve them the most potent wine ever fermented when their physical bodies are in harm’s way. And this doesn’t make you “formidable”; it makes you sick.

Thank you.

A P P E N D I X
The following article is republished from the July 28, 2005, edition of the Moscow–Pullman Daily News:

Church will serve communal wine at UI
By Megan Doyle, Daily News staff writer

Christ Church in Moscow has been given approval to serve communal wine at a Sunday worship at the University of Idaho Kibbie Dome. The service will be in conjunction with the church’s history conference and Trinity Festival that begins Aug. 7. UI President Tim White signed the permit Wednesday. It includes an addendum that grape juice instead of wine will be available for minors.

Sodexho, the food service provider at the Kibbie Dome, will monitor the service of alcohol “in a manner that assures minors do not have access to alcohol,” it states in the permit. Christ Church is responsible for meeting insurance requirements.

Two Moscow women have raised concerns with the university that Christ Church should not be allowed to give alcohol to minors on state property. Though Moscow residents Saundra Lund and Rosemary Huskey did not file an official complaint regarding the serving of alcohol for the event, they have sent correspondence to the university expressing their views on allowing the permit. “Quantity doesn’t matter,” Lund said. On private property during the regular Sunday worship, alcohol requirements are different, they said. “The prohibition of alcohol consumption by minors is a method that least burdens religious practices while protecting the state’s compelling interest,” the women wrote in a June 10 e-mail to the university.

Mike Lawyer, administrative assistant to Christ Church Pastor Douglas Wilson, said he was unaware of the requirement that Sodexho monitor the event and did not want to comment on it. “It’s purely worship, it has nothing to do with recreation or selling,” Lawyer said. “The whole thing is about whether we can worship or not,” he said. UI just happened to get stuck in the middle of the debate. The wine used has an alcohol content of 13.5 percent. “We put the wine in little tiny cups. They hold 1.5 teaspoons,” Lawyer said. “We always have grape juice available. Every Sunday we have a ring of cups on the trays with grape juice,” he said, adding that children are not limited to grape juice.

Huskey said she and Lund are not trying to deny children the opportunity to participate in communion, but grape juice would serve the same purpose. “For me it’s a significant issue because — what does the research show?” Lund said, citing negative impacts of alcohol.

About 1,500 people are expected to attend the worship service at the Kibbie Dome. The regular Sunday service for Christ Church’s 700 members is at Logos School.

“(Doug Wilson’s) hoping that some publicity of him being persecuted will be a rallying point,” Lund said.

The featured speakers at the event are J. Steven Wilkins, Doug Wilson and Peter Lillback. Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow and co-author of a controversial pamphlet with Wilkins titled Southern Slavery, As It Was, which discusses pre-Civil War slave life. Wilkins has attended previous Christ Church conferences. Lillback is an author of theology and history books and is the executive director of the Providence Forum, an organization dedicated to educating Americans on faith and values of the nation’s founding fathers.

The deadline to register for the conference is Monday. For more information on the Trinity Festival, visit the Christ Church Web site at www.christkirk.com.

The End of the Trinity Fest Part 1: First Blast

2008-06-29T17:14:00.000-07:00

The untimely and unheralded demise of the Christ Church Trinity Fest marks such a critical point in the slow, continuous, and inevitable fall of the Kirk that we must take time aside from our two ongoing series (“Make Them Say They’re Sorry” & “The Kult Police State”) to consider it in further detail. I call it critical because in the Fearless Leader’s mind the Trinity Fest represented much more than an ordinary summer carnival. Sure, he originally billed it as an act of humble faith, but as we shall see, he believed the Trinity Fest was proof of the Kult’s faithful worship of God and it was proof that God was working in the Kult in wonderful ways. He advertised the Trinity Fest as a platform to “celebrate” in the midst of his “culture wars.” He promoted it as “a table in the presence of [his/their] enemies.” And as the ad in C/A put it, the Trinity Fest gave him a chance to make people “like him even less” (at least he achieved one goal).

It follows, therefore, that when the Trinity Fest went belly up, maybe his humble faith was not so great and maybe God was not working in the Kult in wonderful ways — at least to the extent that he pointed to the TF as proof of these things. It follows that perhaps God did not take pleasure in their celebrations or their culture wars, and that He had not prepared a table for the Kult in the midst of their enemies. I understand the Fearless Leader won’t see things this way — he’s hardened his heart and fixed his course — there’s no turning back for him. To be sure, I am certain that, like Madonna, he will find another look — he’ll repackage himself in order to remarket himself to the evangelical and Reformed church. Like a virgin. But for now, the Trinity Fest is dead and I want to spend some time reflecting on its short-lived life.

You may or may not know this, but the Trinity Fest is the direct descendant of the Christ Church History Conference, which they held every February in Moscow. Things went sideways, however, during the Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–04, which presumably became the cause of action for the Fearless Leader to reinvent his event. Nevertheless, if my math is correct, Christ Church, Moscow, held its first annual History Conference in 1996, which is not especially noteworthy except for one fact: that year Wilson and Wilkins (I have no idea if George Grant participated) addressed the subject of slavery in the antebellum South and published a monograph to commemorate their historical findings. They titled it Southern Slavery As It Was. I know this because five years ago, during the Southern Slavery scandal, my UPS driver told me he attended the history conference that triggered the controversy. Here’s a direct quote from that conversation: “I couldn’t believe the stuff they were saying and thought to myself, ‘This one’s going to come back to bite them.’” Then he put his head down and chuckled, “I guess it bit them.”

So for C/A’s inaugural “History Conference,” Wilson and Wilkins sterilized one of the most horrific points of American history — the unbiblical subjugation of an entire race of mankind — to portray the most anti-Christian culture of American history — the antebellum South — as the most noble society the world has ever seen. In other words, Wilson & Wilkins established their revisionist agenda during their first conference and I can’t think of a more delusional way for anyone to begin teaching history. Interestingly enough, however, Beelzeblog indirectly accounted for his knack at revising history in his blog post that announced the first annual Trinity Fest:

History is story telling. Faithful history is faithful story telling. And it is amazing how many little errors and emphases can go wrong in just the course of one generation. . . . This being the case, then where do we get off having a history conference every year? If I am not exactly sure what I was doing in 1959, then why would I undertake to talk about events in the 18th century? But for a decade now, we have had an annual history conference in February. None of the speakers at this conference are trained historians. And this coming year, the history conference will be moved to August, rolled into a bigger event called the Trinity Festival, and we will do it all again. What are we doing? We are telling stories, and the reason we are doing so is that we believe that God requires it of us.

History depends on the dedicated historians and archivists who sort, assemble, and work through the mountains of material available to them. And when they have done their work, they present to the layman . . . mountains of material. Not only does it appear that we need specialists to deal with the raw material, we also need specialists to sort out the finished products. . . . Historical laymen should read broadly enough to make sure they are not reading some truncated account or other, but neither should they be embarrassed by the necessity of popularizing the material. . . . Everyone who undertakes this kind of task is in way over his head, and this includes the trained historians. And we cannot protect ourselves by means of our own prowess.

This means that we walk by faith, faith in the God who orders all history to His own perfect ends. . . We are not omnicient [sic], and so we must trust the God who is.

One other element has to be mentioned. Just as we trust Him, we also read the story with our loyalties intact. In other words, we cannot love God without loving those whom we believe to be His sons and daughters, and our brothers and sisters. I read the story of Latimer and Ridley while identifying with them. I am pulling for John Knox, and not for Mary, Queen of Scots. We are a people, and so we must tell the stories of our people to our children. We are not given the option of being silent. And to step out in faith like this is not hubris, but rather humility. (“History for Everyman”; October 9, 2004)

Before we consider Wilson’s methodology, please note his candid admission that he’s not a trained historian, which would be a remarkable statement if not for the clever sleight of hand that accompanied it. Observe: First, he paid tribute to “the dedicated historians and archivists who sort, assemble, and work through the mountains of material available to them.” But then he pretends as though historians don’t deal with conclusive evidence but only pile “material” that the present to laymen: “And when they have done their work, they present to the layman . . . mountains of material.” This in turn allowed Wilson to create a special category for himself — the layman — to sort through the material, which is where he identified himself as a “specialist”: “Not only does it appear that we need specialists to deal with the raw material, we also need specialists to sort out the finished products.” Notice that his specialty requires him to “sort out the finished products” of trained historians, and notice also that he places the difficulties of his specialty on the same par as that of a trained historian: “Everyone who undertakes this kind of task is in way over his head, and this includes the trained historians. And we cannot protect ourselves by means of our own prowess.” And with a wave of the hand Douglas Wilson dismisses the science of history to justify his brainless revisionism. Voila!

This brings us to his self-taught method for studying history. According to this post it’s a three-point process:

“History is story telling. Faithful history is faithful story telling.”

“Historical laymen should read broadly enough to make sure they are not reading some truncated account or other, but neither should they be embarrassed by the necessity of popularizing the material.”

“. . . we also read the story with our loyalties intact. . . we cannot love God without loving those whom we believe to be His sons and daughters, and our brothers and sisters. I read the story . . . while identifying with them. I am pulling for . . . and not for . . .”

The Fearless Leader’s three-step process explains a lot. In fact, as this series develops we shall see that his methodology is really a subset of his psychosis — his mental detachment from reality — but for now we want to concentrate on the so-called specialist’s discipline as it applies to history.

First, he says, “History is story telling. Faithful history is faithful story telling.” This is true. The noun “story” derives from the Latin historia so in its most elementary sense history is story telling. It’s the modifier “faithful” that should concern us, as we shall see.

Second, he says, “Historical laymen should read broadly enough to make sure they are not reading some truncated account or other, but neither should they be embarrassed by the necessity of popularizing the material.” This is true as well. There’s certainly a place for popularized accounts of history. Not everyone has the time or the budget to read The Story of Civilization.

But now we come to the third and most troubling step in his methodology where he writes, “We also read the story with our loyalties intact,” and he defines “loyalties” as “loving those whom we believe to be His [God’s] sons and daughters, and our brothers and sisters.” Moreover, he defines “loving” as “identifying with” and “pulling for” them. He says, “I am pulling for John Knox, and not for Mary, Queen of Scots.” But he never specifies exactly how his “pulling” affects his “story telling,” i.e. his version of history. Moreover, he never explains when he starts “pulling”; is it before or after he’s done his research? Or does his “pulling” influence his research? Even worse, does he believe that by “pulling” for one person against another he may alter the past? And I’m curious what litmus test he uses to determine a historical person’s status before God. For example, Mary I of Scotland was baptized, which means that, according to the objectivity of the covenant, she was/is a child of God. So why would he pull for Knox over Mary? I suppose that technically he answers this question when he refers to “loving those whom we believe to be His sons and daughters,” etc. The “we” means him — Beelzeblog — which means it’s not so much the objectivity of the covenant as the arbitrariness of the Fearless Leader, because there’s nothing objective about this. Regardless, I believe these are important considerations for anyone who might rely on Wilson’s story telling.

You can see a good example of the Fearless Leader keeping his “loyalties intact,” or “pulling,” for someone in his biography of the aforementioned reformer, For Kirk and Covenant: the Stalwart Courage of John Knox. When discussing Knox’s best-known written work, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, Wilson never noted that Knox wrote the book anonymously, which historic fact obviousl rubs Beelzeblog the wrong way. After all, the last thing he’d want to affirm about Knox is that he was ashamed of his baptized name, or that he was an anonymous coward making anonymous accusations, or that he was so ashamed of his accusations that he wouldn’t even sign his name to them, or that he was a dead rat behind the fridge, or that he may have left a soiled prophylactic in Wilson’s mailbox, etc. But you can’t tell the story of Knox without mentioning this historic fact. Anonymity played a role in the Reformation whether the Fearless Leader likes it or not (I wonder what that monstrous woman Edna Wilmington would say). To be sure, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women was a prototype of the fully documented anonymous attack blog, though I’m not sure if Knox fully documented his blast. I am sure, however, that if Knox had had access to the Internet he would have uploaded a website to excoriate that monstrous regiment of women — Bloody Mary and her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots. And the bottom line is that the Fearless Leader “pulled” for Knox and expunged this well-known fact from Knox’s story. In other words, he recreated Knox after his own image.[1]

We see another example of the Fearless Leader “pulling” for Knox in the same biography when he described the reformer’s 19-month captivity in the French galleys. In order to sympathize with Knox, Wilson leaped a full century out of Knox’s lifetime to find a vivid description of the galley slave’s horrors:

Warren Lewis, brother of C.S. Lewis, makes the point bluntly. “Until the coming of the concentration camp, the galley held an undisputed preeminence as the darkest blot on Western civilization; a galley, said the poetic observer shudderingly, would cast a shadow in the blackest midnight.” (FN: W.H. Lewis, Essays Presented to Charles Williams [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1947], 136.)

Lewis was writing of life in the galleys a century after Knox rowed in them, but from all accounts, the time Knox spent there was a time of horror just as it was for his Huguenot brothers 100 years later.

Life on board when the galley was at sea was a sort of Hell’s picnic, for there was really no accommodation for anyone. For the convicts, there was, of course, no question of sleep . . . Cooking facilities were primitive, and, as no one ever washed, the ship crawled with vermin from stem to stern. From below came the constant clank of chains, the crack of whips on bare flesh, screams of pain, and savage growls. At each oar all five men must rise as one at each stroke, push the eighteen-feet oar forward, dip it in the water, and pull with all their force, dropping into a sitting position at the end of each stroke. “One would not think,” says a Huguenot convict, “that it was possible to keep it up for half an hour, and yet I have rowed full out for twenty-four hours without pausing for a single moment.” (FN: Ibid., 141–2. Quote uses “feet” instead of the American “foot” for length description.)

Constant rowing did not bring about the despair of the galley slaves. Had it been, they would all have died in short order. Nevertheless, the whole time, including the respite provided by winter, had to have been the most severe trial. Knox speaks of it as a time of “torment.” Years after, he spoke of the “sobs of his heart” and how he was “sore troubled by corporal infirmity.” (FN: Henry Cowan, John Knox, 83–4.) For those who have not experienced such things, all such words should be taken as understatement.

Knox was for two years a galerien in the French galleys, a very common and expendable form of cheap fuel. (Douglas Wilson, For Kirk and Covenant: the Stalwart Courage of John Knox [Nashville, TN: Highland Books, 2000] 33, 34)

I have no doubt that Knox suffered immensely in the French galley. My point is the great distance Wilson traveled in order to lionize Knox’s imprisonment, his “most severe trial.” Wilson never had the decency to tell his readers when he was “pulling” for Knox, though he alluded to his yank job toward the end of the book:

But in discussing history, a moment comes when one has to make a decision, a judgment call. In studying the War Between the States, was the South right? Or wrong? In studying the American War for Independence, did Romans 13 require the colonists to submit to the usurpations of Parliament? Or not? In writing this book, I must either appreciate Knox or attack him. He lived his life in such a way as to leave a biographer no other option. (Douglas Wilson, For Kirk and Covenant: the Stalwart Courage of John Knox [Nashville, TN: Highland Books, 2000] 220)

“In writing this book, I must either appreciate Knox or attack him. He lived his life in such a way as to leave a biographer no other option.” What kind of twaddle is this? Where’s the crime with presenting the facts, warts and all, and offering a historical assessment? Why must he reduce the life of Knox to a false dilemma? History may be “story telling” but that does not mean that “story telling” is history and in Wilson’s case we never know when he grounds his stories in history and when he grounds them in his imagination. But they sure are entertaining.

And don’t forget that we’ve seen the whole “loyalty” thing before. That’s the word he uses to describe the virtue of ignoring the reprehensible behavior of his friends so that they may maintain a unified front in their war against the Christian church. It goes something like, “Faithful are the loyalties of friend” because “loyal” friends don’t “wound” one another.

But if you look carefully there’s something else going on with the word “loyalty.” In the second sentence of the post, Wilson wrote: “Faithful history is faithful story telling,” and by “faithful” he really means “loyal.” He’s blurring the distinction between “faithful story telling” and “loyalties-intact story telling,” or if he’s not blurring he’s definitely melding the distinction. Obviously, he doesn’t make this direct connection (why would he admit the obvious if it would thoroughly undo his already-tattered credibility?) but it certainly closes the loop and it’s consistent with his moral values. How else do you resolve the obvious conflict of interest that emerges between “faithful” as in “truthful” and “loyal” as in “love for God obligates me to pull for them”? This accounts for his bizarre revisionism — in the end he’s demonstrating loyalty to his pets and to his sympathies and, like everything else, Wilson’s approach to history is a self-serving exercise unrelated to truth or accuracy.

If you don’t think that there’s something wrong with Wilson’s “loyalties intact” bias, then compare it with the loyalties of a real historian. Dr. Scott Clark recently made this observation vis-à-vis the discipline of history:

As a historian I realize a little more each day how hard it is to know the truth, even when that is the goal. My vocation as a historian is to “tell the truth about the past as best I can.” That’s a lot harder than it sounds. Sometimes the truth about a given question doesn’t seem to want to be found. If that’s the case when documents are to hand, how much harder is it to tell the truth in the midst of conflict when emotions are running high and when there is hurt and frustration on all sides? (“A Word to Students in the Midst of Controversy”)

As a historian, Dr. Clark is committed “to tell the truth about the past,” contra Wilson who is committed to “loving those whom we [he] believe to be His [God’s] sons and daughters, and our brothers and sisters,” which is code language for shading the truth to make them appear better. Love for the truth moves Dr. Clark’s history; loyalty to a perverted, unbiblical love moves Wilson’s. This brings us back to the first annual History Conference.

How in the world could Wilson and his fellow incompetent gush so much about the antebellum South? Beelzeblog answered this for us. In their minds they were keeping their “loyalties intact.” They were loving those whom they believed to be God’s sons and daughters. They were pulling for those saintly slave masters who bought and sold human beings like they were trading cattle, and they were pulling against the ungodly North who persecuted those God-fearing slave-traders. Therefore they wrote,

Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. The credit for this must go to the predominance of Christianity. The gospel enabled men who were distinct in nearly every way, to live and work together, to be friends and often intimates. This happened to such an extent that moderns indoctrinated on “civil rights” propaganda would be thunderstruck to know the half of it. (Wilson & Wilkins, Southern Slavery As It Was [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996] 22)

Behold the fruit of unfaithful story telling, the fruit of misguided loyalty. And I’m sure that from 1996 to 2002, they had a pretty good show during their History Conferences. But God is not mocked and in 2003–2004 Christ Church, Moscow, began reaping what it sowed. In the words of one former Kult member, “That was the beginning of the end” (he would know). And it didn’t matter if they moved the event to summer and changed its name to honor the godhead. The Fearless Leader used his stage to deceive those in his care, and he did it in the name of the gospel. Pastor Doug Wilson erred, however, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ proclaims “liberty to the captives” and “sets at liberty those who are oppressed.” It doesn’t misinform the masses under the guise of “faithful story telling.” It doesn’t justify cruelty to make light of human suffering, whether the suffering of galley slaves or Southern slaves. And if you don’t believe me, just ask John Knox.

Thank you.

[1] I thumbed through the book yesterday morning and saw that there’s lots of that going on; Wilson constantly imputed to Knox his own self-perceived personality traits without as much as a shred of evidence. The second half of the book is essentially an autobiography of Wilson’s perception of himself with a few anecdotes about Knox to support it.

Dave Glasebrook

2008-06-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Glasebrook,

At least once, perhaps twice, I offered you front-page attention if you can correct or disprove any of my posts. You, however, ignored my invitations and chose to harass other men for reasons I cannot explain. Therefore, I sincerely ask you to leave them alone. Please keep the toxic waste in Moscow.

If you want to engage me I will be more than happy to answer your concerns as long as you respect the conditions I delineated to you, which appears to be a stumbling block. And in light of your 2090-word treatise (of which I read about 200 words), I now add another condition to the terms. You are only allowed to address one point at a time. This will keep the distinctions cleaner.

If you can produce evidence that demonstrates a factual error on my part, I will be glad to correct the error and apologize for it, which is much more than your leadership has ever done. If, however, you cannot produce evidence that contradicts me, then I echo the words of the Managing Editor for the Spokesman Review, “We are not going to engage any further in this conversation.”

Thank you.

Some Schools Have Real Standards

2008-06-23T17:12:00.000-07:00

Columbia U. Fires Teachers College Professor Accused of Rampant Plagiarism
Columbia University’s Teachers College announced today that it planned to fire Madonna G. Constantine, a tenured professor, for plagiarism. The announcement, which came in a memorandum delivered to faculty members, said Ms. Constantine would be suspended immediately and would be dismissed, subject to a review by a faculty committee.

A law firm hired by the university to conduct an investigation reported in February that Ms. Constantine, a professor of psychology and education, had committed more than two dozen instances of plagiarism. Ms. Constantine has vehemently denied the accusations and has, in turn, accused others of plagiarizing her work. She has also accused colleagues of envy and racism.

Last October, Ms. Constantine said a noose was placed outside her office door. The New York City Police Department’s hate-crime unit investigated the incident, but months later still had no suspects. — Thomas Bartlett

We’re still trying to confirm rumors that New Saint Andrews College has recruited Ms. Constantine to fill an empty faculty position. Her moral flexibility combined with her deft ability to reverse the charge while simultaneously playing the victim makes her a virtual lock at the burgeoning school, despite lingering questions about her skill at revising history.

Thank you.

Fascinating Development

2008-06-19T15:07:00.000-07:00

This is a fascinating development in the treatment of cancer:

Cancer patient recovers after injection of immune cells
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

A cancer patient has made a full recovery after being injected with billions of his own immune cells in the first case of its kind, doctors have disclosed.

The 52-year-old, who was suffering from advanced skin cancer, was free from tumours within eight weeks of undergoing the procedure.

After two years he is still free from the disease which had spread to his lymph nodes and one of his lungs.

Doctors took cells from the man’s own defence system that were found to attack the cancer cells best, cloned them and injected back into his body, in a process known as “immunotherapy”.

Experts said that the case could mark a landmark in the treatment of cancer.

It raises hopes of a possible new way of fighting the disease, which claims 150,000 lives in Britain every year.

Ed Yong, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, said: “It’s very exciting to see a cancer patient being successfully treated using immune cells cloned from his own body. While it’s always good news when anyone with cancer gets the all clear, this treatment will need to be tested in large clinical trials to work out how widely it could be used.”

However, the treatment could prove extremely expensive and scientists say that more research is needed to prove its effectiveness.

Genetically altered white blood cells have been used before to treat cancer patients but this is the first study to show that simply growing vast numbers of the few immune cells in the body to attack a cancer can be safe and effective.

Normally there are too few of the cells in a patient’s body to effectively fight cancer.

Dr Cassian Yee, who led the team at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle, said: “For this patient we were successful, but we would need to confirm the effectiveness of therapy in a larger study.”

The work raises hopes that this approach could not only offer a more effective treatment for skin cancer, or melanoma, which kills around 2,000 people in Britain alone, but be applied to other cancers too.

The patient was one of nine with metastatic melanoma, that is skin cancer that has spread, who were being treated in a recently completed clinical trial to test bigger and bigger doses of their own white blood cells.

Larger, more elaborate, trials are now under way.

Almost 9,000 new cases of melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer, are diagnosed every year in Britain, and nearly 2,000 patients die from the disease.

Prof Peter Johnson, Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician, said: “This is another interesting demonstration of the huge power of the immune system to fight some types of cancer.

“Although the technique is complex and difficult to use for all but a few patients, the principle that someone’s own immune cells can be expanded and made to work in this way is very encouraging for the work that Cancer Research UK and others are carrying out.”

Immunotherapy, in which a patients own immune cells are used to treat cancer, is a growing area of research that aims to develop less-toxic treatments than standard chemotherapy and radiation.

Because cancer occurs when the body’s own cells grow out of control, the immune system only responds weakly.

The ability of the body’s own defences to tackle cancer in this case is all the more remarkable because most deadly feature of the disease is its ability to colonise other parts of the body, when it becomes much more difficult to treat.

A dramatic example of immunotherapy was reported two years ago by one pioneer of the field, Dr Steven Rosenberg of the US National Cancer Institute, who eradicated cancer from two dying men using genetically modified versions of their own cells.

Both Mark Origer and “Thomas M” were suffering from advanced melanoma but the hope is that such methods could be customised to attack other common cancers, notably breast, colon and lung.

Dr Rosenberg told The Daily Telegraph the new work is an “interesting study that helps to confirm the effectiveness of cell transfer immunotherapy for treating cancer patients. We have now treated 93 patients with metastatic melanoma using their own anti-tumour cells with response rates up to 72 per cent. Mark Origer remains disease free now over three years after treatment.”

Thank you.

Justice Delayed

2008-06-16T13:52:00.000-07:00

U.S. panel upholds deportation of Nazi guard
By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) — A U.S. appeals panel has upheld an order to deport an 83-year-old Wisconsin man accused of serving as a Nazi SS guard whose duty was to finish off dying Jews in a two-day mass execution in Poland that killed more than 40,000, the U.S. Justice Department said on Monday.

The department said the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the January, 2007 order to deport Josias Kumpf, 83, to Germany, Austria or his native Serbia.

“Josias Kumpf participated in a 1943 Nazi operation that resulted in the murder of thousands of innocent victims. His culpability in this atrocity does not diminish with the passage of time,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich.

The department said Kumpf had admitted to participating in what the Nazis called “Operation Harvest Festival” in November 1943. About 42,000 Jews were killed over two days in the mass execution at three prison camps in German-occupied Poland.

Kumpf, who had joined the Nazi SS Death’s Head guard in 1942, was serving at the Trawniki slave-labor camp at the time of the massacres, the department said.

“Kumpf stood guard as approximately 8,000 Jewish prisoners, including approximately 400 children, were shot and killed in pits at Trawniki,” the department said. “According to Kumpf, his assignment was to watch for victims who were still ‘halfway alive’ or ‘convulsing.’ If any of the prisoners attempted to escape, he stated, his job was to ‘shoot them to kill.’”

The massacre was “one of the most infamous crimes of the Holocaust,” said Eli Rosenbaum, head of the Justice Department’s Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations.

The Justice Department said Kumpf had immigrated to the United States from Austria in 1956 and became a U.S. citizen in 1964. The special investigations office and the U.S. attorney for eastern Wisconsin sued in 2003 to strip Kumpf of his citizenship and won the case in 2005.

The office was founded in 1979 and has won cases against 107 participants in Nazi war crimes, the department said.

The United States has stripped the citizenship of 16 former Trawniki guards, the U.S. Holocaust Museum says on its Web site. (Editing by David Wiessler)

Thank you.

A Labor of Love

2008-06-13T08:58:00.000-07:00

Summer’s here and in my off time I’ve been helping my neighbor build a retaining wall in his backyard, which has cut into my designated time for fully documented anonymous attack blogging. The wall is slow going because we’re using fairly large stones (roughly 75 to 150 pounds each) and it takes about three hours before my dogs start barking, but it looks good. All of this is to say that I missed documenting the anniversary of this important date (June 9, 2005) when an unidentified person sent A Labor of Love to the Internet.

A Labor of Love was written by a Christian who wrote with the assumption that Douglas Wilson is regenerate, which assumption I do not grant. Moreover, I am not aware of anyone who has attempted to produce evidence to support the claim. Nevertheless, it’s a good read for several reasons, let me name just one: A Labor of Love represents the testimony of one more witness in a long line of witnesses who testified to the extreme polarizing affect of Douglas Wilson on the local community. As usual Beelzeblog blamed Emmanuel Goldstein for writing A Labor of Love (he did not), which was his way of saying that since Emmanuel Goldstein is a non-human who deserves to die (according to the Fearless Leader’s unwritten but well-established decree), everyone must ignore everything he says. But I digress.

As you read this, please keep one fact in mind: This letter was published about three months after Douglas Wilson learned that a serial pedophile had raped several lambs from his flock for the last 18 months. In other words, this letter was published 3 months after Wilson learned that God’s judgment had fallen on the depraved culture of Christ Church, Moscow, at least according to Douglas Wilson’s standard, and members of the Kult still did not know about Sitler’s abominations. Furthermore, this letter was published while Wilson was in the middle of his zoning controversy. City Council had just ruled that the Zoning Code prohibited New Saint Andrews College from using downtown Moscow, which put Wilson’s takeover plans at serious risk (Council eventually amended the code to allow NSA by Conditional Use Permit). Lastly, as you read this please note that Wilson was in the middle of an extremely strong PR push to market his first annual but now-defunct Trinity Fest as the zenith of Christian culture, which marketing did not mention his serial pedophile or his convicted child molester, Jamin Wight, whose predations took place at the same time as Steven Sitler’s. Perhaps he should have named it the Trinity Fester.

Take a few minutes to read A Labor of Love.

Thank you.

CANCELLED

2008-06-07T06:42:00.000-07:00

I received this comment yesterday:

David Gadbois said. . .

Mark,

I just received an e-mail from Christ Church indicating that Trinity Fest has been cancelled, since the low registrations indicated that it would not be “financially viable.”

The e-mail speculates that this is because of the economic downturn. While this is no doubt a factor, they seem blind to the fact that they have marginalized themselves because of their promotion of Federal Vision theology.

I had attended Trinity Fest a few years back. It was a genuinely fun thing to do. I can’t say anything bad about it.

But I, and I suspect many others, would not attend it now because they show no sign of backing off of the FV kookiness. I’m sure it wasn’t part of the plan, but Wilson has gone from having broad appeal in the Reformed world (articles in Tabletalk) and even the broader evangelical world (the Family Series books). But by now he has whittled down his audience to theonomic, post-mill Federal Visionists. A very small market indeed.

I don’t know which TF DG attended, but I know that locally, the TF was no less controversial than its predecessor, the History Conference, and the vast majority of locals did not receive it as well as DG. It was an unmitigated disaster for the downtown businesses and it’s clear that the Kult leaders went out of their way to personally offend the downtown businesses that they hurt financially, so as to rub the loss in their faces. I can’t say how pleased I am to hear this and if you’re out there Dave G., I would love to see and post the whole email (including the “To” and “From,” I can remove your name).

And as long as we’re on the Kult’s financial woes, I welcome an insider’s explanation for why so many Kult members have suddenly began taking seconds on their mortgages. We’ve calculated a couple of million dollars in loans spread out among roughly 15 different families in a one-year window (the average note is $250,000). It could be a coincidence, but my instincts tell me that Beelzeblog has discovered another way to fleece the flock. We protect our sources and the way we see it, if you share inside information with us, you’re well on your way to escaping and we will help you as much as possible. Think of our services as an underground railroad.

Thank you.

Make Them Say They’re Sorry — Part 1

2008-06-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

Last week we examined an email written by Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, to the president of the University of Idaho, which essentially threatened the UI with a defamation suit if they did not remove two UI historians’ book review of his book Southern Slavery As It Was from their website and replace it with an apology. We have no way of knowing whether or not the Fearless Leader ran his email past the Christ Church elders for approval before he sent it or whether they heard about, just as the rest of us, when it hit Vision 20/20 (more legible version here). I suppose that’s a moot question, however, because all evidence indicates that if he had sought the Kult elders’ permission to send the email, they would have bobbed their heads up and down like Bobble Head dolls, saying, “Yes, Doug, whatever you say,” which talent was the only prerequisite for their appointment to office. The same applies to his attorney, who should have dissolved their professional relationship the moment he read the email, though we can rest certain that Wilson didn’t give him permission.

The reason for the Fearless Leader’s distress with the UI is somewhat troublesome and raises serious questions about his competence, or honesty. The Southern Slavery scandal erupted because he originally owned the thesis of his booklet SSAIW as a subject that gave him no shame. Indeed, he invited the Daily News into his home to discuss the slaves’ life of plenty. He even smiled for the camera knowing he just made the front page. It simply never occurred to him that his breezy take on the subject would horrify normal human beings who don’t live in his alternate universe of reality. Consequently, when horror swept the Palouse, the Fearless Leader adopted the high road and transformed himself into peace-loving abolitionist who wrote SSAIW to repudiate warfare (i.e. the Civil War) as a means of abolition. Indeed, his transformation was so radical and so complete that he began taking offense at anyone who suggested that SSAIW was a biblical defense of slavery in the antebellum South, contra his original position of shamelessness. And just like that, in the twinkling of an eye — or more likely the wink of the eye — Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, reversed roles and cast himself as the victim of a well-organized slander campaign.

And in this respect, Wilson’s response to the Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004 is identical to his response to the Federal Vision controversy. In 2003, after he transformed himself, he claimed that everyone misquoted him, took his words out of context, and slandered him. Never mind that these persons were award-winning authorities on the subject of Southern slavery from the University of Maryland, Duke University, the University of California Berkeley, and Stanford University. Jump ahead three years: After seven Reformed denominations, multiple micro-presbyteries, several Reformed seminaries, and every heavyweight theologian in the Reformed church repudiated the Federal Vision as non-confessional, Wilson and his well-trained clones claimed that all of these institutions and persons misrepresented them. It’s the same MO, different controversy — play stupid and act as though no one understands you.

But don’t take my word for it; read this fully documented front-page story from the Moscow–Pullman Daily News for some of the most scintillating blurbs you’ll never see on the back of any Canon Press title. Or if you prefer, you can take a short cut by reading Dr. Cal Beisner’s assessment of SSAIW, which he posted to the WORLD Mag Blog in 2005 during the plagiarism scandal:

Let me make my position clear: SSAIW is historical trash, as demonstrated by a number of written critiques (including McKenzie’s — which, along with Wilson’s response and McKenzie’s rejoinder, I have read). It also makes the stupid error of equating Southern black chattel slavery, which, founded on manstealing, was sinful, with the types of slavery (bonded servanthood, slavery to pay debts, slavery as punishment for crime, or slavery as alternative to death in warfare) countenanced (under carefully regulated conditions) in the Bible. (Comment #139, April 25, 2005)

“Historical trash” — I don’t think you need a Ph.D. to understand that sound bite, though Dr. Beisner earned his Ph.D. from the real Saint Andrews University, not the new one. And since he invoked Dr. McKenzie, here’s his letter to WORLD Magazine:

Far more serious
In fairness to Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins (“Doug Wilson and slavery,” April 30), the two dozen occurrences of plagiarism in their controversial booklet on Southern slavery were obviously unintentional — evidence of sloppiness rather than deceit. Far more serious are the booklet’s other errors. Its numerous logical errors, factual mistakes, misreading of evidence, and ad hominem attacks falsely model what it means to love God with our minds and its unsubstantiated defense of Southern slavery as a “pleasant . . . experience for the majority” will constitute a stumbling block of monumental proportions for many sincere seekers.
— Robert Tracy McKenzie; Seattle, Wash.

Obviously Dr. McKenzie erred on the side of charity regarding the question of plagiarism. I am certain that if he had the benefit of our fully documented anonymous attack sister blog, Fœdero Plagiary, he would have been less understanding. But this is beside the point. The point is that, to a man, every single historian who reviewed SSAIW dismissed it as the invention of a couple of hacks who had no interest in illuminating history and, despite this overwhelming testimony from this wide array of academics, Doug Wilson maintained that all of these scholars misunderstood and misrepresented him. In fact, at one point he called them “liars”:

Rather, when 1,200 signed a petition against what was represented to them by liars as my views on slavery, homosexuality and women . . . (“More Red Statey Extremism”; October 21, 2005, emphasis original)

This remarkable claim gives us a glimpse into Wilson’s brain. In one sweeping statement he confidently asserted that unnamed “liars” deceived 1,200 persons into signing the “Not In Our Town” petition. In other words, he maintained that none of the signatories actually read SSAIW to know firsthand his position on “slavery, homosexuality and women.” Rather, invisible “liars” deceived them into signing the petition. Please notice, however, that in addition to not identifying the so-called “liars,” he neglected to identify any lies. As always, he merely asserted it.

This brings us back to the Fearless Leader’s email to the president of the University of Idaho. You really need to put yourself in President Michael’s shoes to comprehend fully Wilson’s demand. Two history professors from the UI wrote a book review of SSAIW that echoed the sentiments of every scholastic authority on antebellum slavery who read SSAIW and the UI’s Office of Diversity and Human Rights posted the book review to its UI website as a public service. In the words of Chick Hern, “No harm, no foul.” But suddenly, out of nowhere, you receive a blistering email from one of the book’s authors threatening you with a defamation suit as well as demanding that you remove the book review from your website and replace it with an apology. In fact, his email states that this was his second request for an apology. Mind you, the substance of the book review bore witness with the unanimous testimony of every other historian who reviewed SSAIW. What would you do?

If you think about it, this is an excellent example of Wilson imposing his worldview on others: “Agree with me, or else. And say you’re sorry too.” I’m not sure what he wanted the apology to say, but I surmise he expected something such as this:

We have removed Drs. Quinlan’s and Ramsey’s book review of SSAIW from our website because we have discovered that Douglas Wilson’s and Steven ~~“Machen”~~ Wilkins’ research of antebellum slave life has uncovered previously unknown facts about slavery and the hitherto unanimous voice of history on this subject has been terribly mistaken. The slaves led lives of plenty and their masters were benevolent men who wanted the very best for their human property. We are genuinely thankful for these men’s marvelous ground-breaking effort and look forward to introducing their text into our curriculum. Therefore, we sincerely apologize to Messieurs Douglas Wilson and Steven ~~“Machen”~~ Wilkins for whatever harm we may have caused by posting the erroneous book review on our site and we wish them the very best as they pursue their studies of American history.

And if you think this is an exaggeration, then think again because Wilson and Wilkins frontloaded their booklet with the claim that it is a sin to believe the truth about American history as opposed to their revision of it:

An accurate representation of the nature of Southern slavery has yet to be widely disseminated. And as a consequence, there has been a great deal of falsehood paraded about in the pretense of truth. The South has been stigmatized and slandered, and generations have been misled over the true nature of the “peculiar institution” and, as a consequence, they have not understood the true nature of the South in general. We must know the truth about slavery. . . Where there is sin, let us freely confess and forsake it. But because we have resolved to abandon sin, this must include the sin of believing a lie. (Douglas Wilson and Steven Wilkins, SSAIW [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1996] 8, emphasis original)

This one paragraph painted the Fearless Leader and his cohort into a corner because according to them, you commit the “sin of believing a lie” if you disagree with their fairytale version of Southern history. Of course, this is typical manipulation from the Fearless Leader — seize the moral high ground and hold others to account to your position, but in this case he had no high ground and everyone could see that he was the only person lying. Consequently, I don’t doubt that when the UI legal office saw Wilson’s email they instructed the UI president to ignore him, because that’s exactly what he did. Generally speaking, adults disregard children when they throw tantrums, which brings us to the Fearless Leader’s letter to Governor Kempthorne. Here is a transcribed version of the letter; our next post shall examine its contents:

Governor Dirk Kempthorne
Office of the Governor
700 West Jefferson, 2nd Floor
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0034

December 30, 2003

Dear Governor Kempthorne,

Greetings from the north, and I hope that this letter finds you well. I wish my tone could be as light as the one of a few years ago in which I returned your necktie from the Logos auction, but the seriousness of recent events has precluded that.

I am writing you with an important request. A controversy has been boiling here in Moscow for the last several months, a good deal of it resting on the back of inaccurate and defamatory material that is being circulated against us and our ministries here in Moscow. Some of this is the result of the incompetence of the Daily News, but the driving force behind the controversy is coming from certain offices at the University of Idaho.

What it boils down to is that the diversity police are after us. We have sponsored an annual history conference here in Moscow for a number of years, a conference that has brought in hundreds of people from all over the country. The average attendance at this conference is about 800 people. The Daily News reported (erroneously) that the conference this year was going to be on slavery, which started the public outcry. But since that time, much of the defamatory gasoline that has been keeping the slanderous fire alive has come from the UI.

In particular, Raul Sanchez of the Office of Diversity and Human Rights has used his office’s web site to help circulate defamatory material against us. I have included with this letter a copy of a letter I sent to President Michael and Provost Pitcher a week or so ago on that issue. The incendiary essay referred to in my letter is by Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey, both of them on the faculty of the history department at the UI. This last weekend, Dr. Graden, another history professor, wrote an op-ed piece for the Daily News in which he accused us of creating a climate which would lead to the murder of gays and the burning of synagogues.(!)

The actual circumstances are the reverse of this. The businesses of some of our people have been vandalized, and the attacks on us are growing increasingly brazen. UI professors are using time in class to incite students against us, and consequently, since the response of the UI administration has been positively anemic (e.g. allowing Raul Sanchez to use his UI web site to circulate defamatory material), I am very concerned about what may happen this February at our conference. If there is violence or harassment of any kind (and there has already been quite a bit), it would not be difficult at all to show how the UI nurtured the climate in which this developed.

In the best of times, I would find it problematic for individuals at a publicly funded university to use their position to attack Christian ministries for their failure to be secularists. But in the current climate, for anyone up there at the University of Enron to set themselves up as moral arbiters is a bit thick.

As you no doubt know, liberals and progressives love diversity until they actually start getting some. In writing this letter, I am not asking that anyone’s legitimate freedom of opinion or expression be restricted in any way. But I am asking that the UI be removed as the base from which they launch their mortar rounds. I am also asking that the Office of Diversity apologize to us and to the public for this gross misuse of the resources of a public university.

This should go without saying, but I want to assure you that we have nothing whatever to do with racism, white supremacy, white separatism, or any other disease coming out of the fever swamps of the right wing. I do not want to weary you with any details here, but we would be happy to answer any questions you might have in this regard.

As I said at the beginning, I wish the occasion for this letter was something else. But there it is. I appreciate any attention you can give to this matter.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

cc: Gary Michael, Brian Pitcher, Blake Hall, Raul Sanchez

Thank you.

Politics

2008-06-04T09:41:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has an excellent article dissecting Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party’s primaries. And in case you’re tempted to fall for Obama’s rhetoric, check out Pamela Gellar’s blog, Atlas Shrugs. Her style reminds me of a certain anonymous attack blogger: she understands that a hostile religion has bad intentions for those who oppose it; she’s a very direct writer; and she’s funny. She gets hits too. In fact, her blog recently placed 174th of all blogs and 42nd in political blogs.

Thank you.

Violence to History

2008-05-28T17:51:00.000-07:00

Our next post addresses the letter that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, wrote to the Governor of the State of Idaho during the Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004. In the letter Wilson references a Daily News op-ed by Dr. Dale Graden, Professor of History at the University of Idaho, which is worth republishing here for three reasons:

First, between this column and the book review by Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey, you can see that the community was still piecing together the big picture surrounding Wilson and this op-ed specifically identified the community’s primary concerns relative to Wilson and the Kult at that time.

Second, the existence of the op-ed helps demonstrate the inflamed state of the community at that time. I have noted repeatedly that the Daily News kept the story front and center via headlines, editorials, and letters to the editor for about five straight months, and this op-ed is one more fully documented example of this historical fact.

Third, make careful note of this statement from Dr. Graden: “Efforts to have Mr. Wilson clear the record on his views about slavery, misogyny, and homosexuality have met with statements or denials that contradict the opinions clearly expressed in his extensive writings. In Wilson’s spin, the real issues have become obscured.” Does that sound familiar?

The Daily News ran this column on Saturday, December 27, 2003, which means that the News gave it a primo spot since they have no Sunday paper. A second thing you should notice about this column is that (according to my records) this was the first time that the News did not give the Kult (Wilson) a response column, which forced them to respond on their website (I shall not republish it because it has too many fabrications for me to correct).

Finally, a word about Dabney. Some of his writings make me cringe and I understand completely how he would send an academic community over the edge. There’s no escaping his racism and there’s no justification for it either. However high one may hold his Presbyterianism, he’s the farthest thing from an authority on race relations. To be sure, he’s living proof of the old Puritan’s maxim: “The best of men are still men at best.” When this controversy erupted a dear friend of mine, who is a trained historian as well, put it best, saying (I paraphrase from memory), “I understand that Dabney was a product of his culture; his environment engrained his racism into him, making it part and parcel of his theology. But this is 2003 — enough time has passed that everyone should know better.” Indeed. And the very education that Dabney withheld from an entire race of mankind should have enlightened some Southern boys to a biblical understanding of race relations. But this assumes certain people are educated. Moreover, since Wilson and Wilkins have jettisoned completely Dabney’s theology proper, they compel us to inquire exactly what it is that draws them to him.

Here is Dr. Graden’s column:

Coalition says conference undermines diversity
Members of the Moscow-Pullman community have recently raised important questions about pastor Douglas Wilson’s views on racial slavery, women, and violence against gays. In response, Mr. Wilson and some of his supporters have conducted an extensive media campaign to denounce these people as “secular humanists,” “Darwinists,” or “radical progressives” who are driven by “hatred for the historic Christian gospel.” Efforts to have Mr. Wilson clear the record on his views about slavery, misogyny, and homosexuality have met with statements or denials that contradict the opinions clearly expressed in his extensive writings. In Wilson’s spin, the real issues have become obscured. It is necessary that we place the facts before our community and explain our deep concern.

On Feb. 5–7, 2004, Credenda/Agenda’s “Ninth Annual History Conference” will be at the University of Idaho. The event is sponsored by Wilson’s congregation. Some of the featured speakers are:

Steven Wilkins, co-founder of the League of the South, a group identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a neo-Confederate hate group. In our opinion, this group is dedicated to southern secession and racial separatism. It’s our understanding that, over the past decade, the neo-Confederate movement has recast the anti-civil rights agenda of hate groups like the KKK into religious terms.

George Grant, of King’s Meadow Study Center in Tennessee. Grant is a major figure in the national Christian Reconstructionist movement, which seeks to subvert the U.S. constitution and replace it with a Christian theocracy. In his 1993 book Legislating Immorality (co-authored by Mark Horne), Grant advocates the death penalty for gays, saying “[t]here is no such option for homosexual offenses” except capital punishment (pp. 186–87).

Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Like Grant, Wilson is a national figure in the Reconstruction movement. He has been active in neo-Confederate networks since 1995. In 1996, he co-wrote (with Wilkins) a short booklet called Southern Slavery, As It Was. The book claims “[o]wning slaves is not an abomination” and alleges that African-American slave emancipation has led to “abortion, feminism, and sodomy” in today’s society (pp. 21, 11).

Peter Leithart, a fellow at the New St. Andrews facility. In the conservative Weekly Standard (March 26, 2001), Leithart praised Holocaust denier and Reconstructionist J. Rousas Rushdoony as an “American original.” Rushdoony’s writings on the Holocaust and German casualties draw upon views expressed by Nazi collaborator Léon de Poncis and Holocaust denier David Irving. In the New York Review of Books, Joseph Lelyveld identifies Rushdoony as a “religious zealot and Holocaust denier” (June 12, 2003).
The centerpiece of the conference is Mr. Wilson’s talk on R.L. Dabney. Dabney was a marginal religious figure in the antebellum South who has been appropriated by the neo-Confederate and Reconstructionist movements. Dabney was a secessionist, proslavery apologist, and opponent of African-American education and interracial marriages.

We are concerned that this conference could negatively affect the general climate in our community. Several of the conference speakers, moreover, do not simply express intolerant views but actively issue “a call to arms” (in the words of George Grant) for their followers to put them into action. We are concerned because this type of hate speech has led to horror in our local past — most notably with Benjamin Matthew Williams, a Moscow resident and former UI student, who murdered a gay couple and burned three synagogues in northern California in 1999.

While the conference participants have the constitutional right to express their opinions, we feel we have an equal right to voice our disagreement. In so doing, we hope to raise community consciousness and promote a greater spirit of tolerance, diversity, and mutual respect within our community. In our view, the ideas expressed by Wilkins, Wilson, and Grant advocate intolerance, undermine diversity efforts, promote aggression based upon race, gender, and sexual orientation, and do violence to historical accuracy.

We invite you to join our efforts in promoting human rights, diversity, and true toleration in the Palouse.

Dale Graden is writing for the Equality Coalition. Those wishing additional information on these topics or interested in helping may visit the “Not on the Palouse” Web site at www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse or the UI’s office of Diversity and Human Rights at www.webs.uidaho.edu/diversity.

I should note as a follow-up that the 2004 history conference was George Grant’s last appearance in Moscow. To my knowledge he has not stated publicly his reasons for this and I have no knowledge that it’s connected to this scandal, but I certainly couldn’t blame the man for wanting distance from both his past written record and this set of loons.

Thank you.

Say You’re Sorry

2008-05-26T17:56:00.000-07:00

“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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.
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.

“I drank the Kool-Aid for seven years and it didn’t hurt me!”

2008-05-22T14:33:00.001-07:00

One of the difficulties of hosting a fully documented anonymous attack blog is the amount of time it takes to gather and organize my documentation. Unlike those who have the luxury of hosting fully autonomous self-willed attack blogs, I actually have to document my facts. Of course, the irony is that they declare my documentation “slander” while they produce no evidence or arguments to support their claim. They just assert it. I suppose that’s because they are fully autonomous self-willed attack blogs. Anyway, the last few posts as well as the next few posts are all ground work for an upcoming post on the personality cult at Christ Church, Moscow. I appreciate your patience.

A couple of weeks ago during the brouhaha at Reformed Catholicism, a young man named Tim Enloe posted a passionate defense of Christ Church, Moscow, claiming that the words “cult” and “compound” do not apply there.

Tim Enloe wrote,

Mary Louise, I don’t know what you’ve been reading (I don’t care to read anonymous attack blogs or receive anonymous or vague charges against pastors, regardless of their purported “pastoral” purpose), but I lived in Moscow for 7 years and I have to say this about your “compound” remark. There is a sense of close community, perhaps even of unique community, at work in Moscow, but to call it a “compound” and invoke the word “cult” is more than a bit over the top.

Like any other community under the sun, Moscow has its problems. But if one hasn’t lived there, worshipped there, fellowshipped with them in their homes, I don’t believe it’s appropriate for one to be talking about their problems. And especially not on the basis of tales told by people one doesn’t know about circumstances one is only getting one account of, and that one account in a medium notorious for its impersonal ability to ratchet things up to levels of controversy far beyond what would ever occur in a face-to-face context. I don’t defend everything that comes out of Moscow, and I never did and do not now walk in total, uncritical lockstep with my teachers at NSA — but I lived there, worshipped there, and fellowshipped with many of those there face-to-face for 7 years. Neither “compound” nor “cult” are appropriate words to use of them.

I don’t doubt that this young man really believes what he wrote, but the very credentials he put forward to establish his authority on the matter tell us all we need to know:

I lived in Moscow for 7 years.

There is a sense of close community, perhaps even of unique community, at work in Moscow

But if one hasn’t lived there, worshipped there, fellowshipped with them in their homes, I don’t believe it’s appropriate for one to be talking about their problems.

I don’t defend everything that comes out of Moscow, and I never did and do not now walk in total, uncritical lockstep with my teachers at NSA

I lived there, worshipped there, and fellowshipped with many of those there face-to-face for 7 years.

Let’s say that someone lived in a spiritual compound in a non-Christian cult for seven years, during which time the leadership of the non-Christian cult systematically brainwashed him so that he could not discern right from wrong. Even worse, his brainwashing was so efficient that they excised from him his ability to think critically or independently, which meant that he always deferred to his teacher’s sound bites. After seven years of brainwashing, could that person, still in their brainwashed state, be in a position to speak with any authority on the subject? Would they even know if someone washed their brain?

Let’s let the same person — Tim Enloe — answer the question for us. Four years ago (I presume this was part of his seven-year stay in Moscow), during the Southern Slavery scandal, Mr. Enloe posted the following email to Vision 20/20. Read it and tell me if he wasn’t walking in total uncritical lockstep with his teachers at New Saint Andrews College; tell me if his sense of unique community (i.e. peer pressure) didn’t contribute to his unquestioning loyalty to the cause:

From: Solafidian@aol.com
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 14:02 PM
Subject: Re: Slaves vs non slave ownership

So a guy can write a pamphlet expressing an alternative view of Southern slavery, and next thing you know he’s the focus of a full-blown internet Inquisition based on ethical absolutes that aren’t being acknowledged for what they are or from whence they came, and which cause some of their adherents to act like contemporary American culture is the highest form of good that humanity has ever produced. Why, just look at how every age of history and every other viewpoint gets summarily judged by the standards of “tolerance” emanating from 21st century American universities and those who defend their closed-minded, double-standard fulminations about same.

I was going to write an e-mail explaining why cultural imperialism was evil, but it dawned on me halfway through it that it was incredibly stupid to have to write it in the year 2003 AD. I thought we’d gotten past all that hate speech junk. This isn’t the Dark Ages, you know.

Tim Enloe
Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co.

The amazing thing about this post is the way he mimed Wilson’s sound bites without any critical thought whatsoever. Doug said it. I believe it. That settles it. It’s clear, however, that he could not develop substantially the thoughts behind his sound bites. He simply repeated them, by rote, just as he learned them in the compound. And even though he meant (apparently) his tag line, “Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co.,” as a “ha ha” preemptive answer to anyone who might suggest that he appeared quite duped by the Fearless Leader, he nevertheless presented himself as “Another Backwards Christian Dupe of Wilson & Co,” though I would strike the word “Christian.”

SSAIW was not an “alternative view of Southern slavery,” it was racist propaganda written (plagiarized) by two certifiable morons for their mindless disciples, which included Mr. Enloe. I’ve already written that Wilson uses the mythology of SSAIW as one of the critical steps in programming his disciples to accept his universe of make believe: Mr. Enloe stands as living proof of this thesis.

Rosemary Huskey’s response to Mr. Enloe still stands unanswered by him because no one at NSA taught him how to think critically.

Thank you.

A Footnote for the Historians

2008-05-19T15:26:00.000-07:00

I am aware that a few historians from a couple universities and at least one seminary are reading this blog; I know this because they have contacted me off list with minor inputs, for which I am very thankful and extremely flattered. Obviously these scholars appreciate the value of primary documents combined with honest, objective, unbiased, and dispassionate analysis in the role of history, as well as a good sense of humor.

Gentlemen, this post’s for you. And when historians document the awful Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004, I hope that one of them is so kind as to footnote the exceptional research of that fully documented anonymous attack blogger — Mark T. — in their historic work.

Thank you.

INTRODUCTION
Very early during Douglas Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004, two historians from the University of Idaho — Drs. Sean M. Quinlan & William L. Ramsey — published a scathing rebuttal to Wilson’s and Wilkins’ fantastic revision of American history, which they titled Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t: Professional Historians Respond to Neo-Confederate Misinformation. I don’t know this, but I surmise that the Daily News’ front-page story on October 11, 2003, shocked and horrified Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey when they read it, just as the rest of the Palouse. And I don’t know this either, but I surmise that they instantly procured copies of Southern Slavery As It Was to confirm the accuracy of the Daily News’ story and once confirmed began corroborating on an informed review of the racist screed. They state the reason for their effort in their Introduction:

Why should two University of Idaho historians waste a moment thinking about this swill? It is not that Wilson and Wilkins are original or eloquent writers. At best, their work simply transcribes many of the racist arguments advanced by proslavery activists in the 1840s and 1850s. . . Even as amateur ideologues, their work is decidedly mediocre. Their thinking is confused and full of analytic and empirical errors. The booklet is replete with scholarly pretensions and cryptic references that ultimately lead nowhere. Their tone is self-consciously autodidactic, but like the Self-Taught Man in J.-P. Sartre’s Nausea they cannot understand what they have taught themselves. . . So, if their work is so hackneyed and flawed, why bother responding? If the authors of Southern Slavery, As It Was are not interested in responsible scholarship, why engage them on a scholarly level? First, they have attempted to cloak their agenda in the mantle of academic legitimacy, and, second, the booklet has circulated in that guise unopposed for seven years. It has clearly found an audience outside of academia that is unfamiliar with serious scholarship but still admires the scholarly mystique. As members of the community, we see its effects all around us. As teachers, we even see it in our classrooms, and we know too well that it will not serve the reputation of our state. It is imperative, therefore, that real historical scrutiny be focused on this unusual performance. (Southern Slavery As It Wasn’t: Professional Historians Respond to Neo-Confederate Misinformation)

Finally, I don’t know this but I surmise that they published their work one day too early without carefully proofreading it one last time, because the original version contained a total of three typos that gave the Fearless Leader all the handles he needed to thoroughly impeach their scholarship, at least in his mind. The typos involved the names of Francis Shaeffer, George Grant, and Peter Leithart, which they spelled Frances Shaeffer, Gary Grant, and Peter Leithard, and respectively.

THREE TYPOS
The Francis Schaeffer typo is just that — a typo — and for all I know “Frances” may be an alternative spelling in Europe. The George Grant mistake is easily understood when you notice that they placed his name immediately after Gary DeMar’s name on a list of authors that they compiled to note primary resources for theonomists: “Its followers draw their core beliefs from the writings of Frances Shaeffer, Gary DeMar, Gary Grant, David Chilton, and Rousas John Rushdoony, among others.” It’s an obvious mistake traceable to both names beginning with the letter G. We know this because footnote 32 cites Grant’s name correctly (at least in this web version). The misspelling of Leithart’s name took place in a footnote and it was an ordinary typo pure and simple. We live in a fallen world where people make mistakes, even scholars, but three typos are not the end of the world, neither do they discredit an academic work. As I said, the historians could have proofed their manuscript one more time.

In their defense, however, I note for future historians that the atmosphere in Moscow was absolute chaos at that time. The Daily News literally kept the story on its front page roughly three to five times per week for the first two months of the scandal, while the letters to the editor were daily. Normal human beings, which presumably includes Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey, were still genuinely stunned at the discovery of Wilson’s and Wilkins’ revision, and you can see this in their response. They were angry. Indeed, call it righteous indignation for a just cause. But anger can lead to haste, which can create any number of errors, such as typos, and the paper contained three typos and, as we shall see, the Fearless Leader mercilessly prosecuted these two historians to the fullest extent of the Spelling Bee law, which leads to my next point.

PLAGIARISM
While the first published critique of SSAIW contained three regrettable typos, the booklet SSAIW was chock full of plagiarized text. To be sure, it was more than good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over — it was word for word, sentence for sentence, and paragraph for paragraph. Steven ~~“Machen”~~ Wilkins sure knows how to squeeze the most out of his electronic-transfer errors, which doesn’t matter because Douglas Wilson co-authored, edited, and published the book Southern Slavery As It Was. He was the principal figure responsible for the book’s contents pursuant to the terms of his Canon Press contract. And the historical fact of Wilson’s and Wilkins’ plagiarism is established, including the chronological timeline of events:

University of Washington historian Dr. Tracy McKenzie, who specializes in nineteenth-century American history, notified Wilson of the plagiarism “some years ago,” which was not long after Wilson published the booklet in 1996 and well before the scandal of 2003–2004:

When Dr. [McKenzie] mentioned this problem to me on the phone some years ago, he did not give me the detailed specifics and I assumed that it must have been some kind of typo problem — and I had no idea of the magnitude of it. In his most recent letter to me, Dr. [McKenzie] said that he did not mention the plagiarism problem to me in his first letter because he did not want to seem like he was “piling on.” But I really wish he had provided me with the specifics — this is not an area where we differ at all, and the booklet in its current form would have been pulled in 1996. (“For Reasonable People”; August 5, 2004, emphasis added)

Reasonable people of any stripe should catch the red flags here. First, an expert authority on the subject slavery in America contacted Wilson to inform him of the plagiarism, as well as other errors, and Wilson blew the man off no differently than he dismisses everyone else who tries to correct him. Second, notice how Wilson categorized “typo problems”: “I assumed that it must have been some kind of typo problem.” “Typo problems” didn’t register as a significant problem with the Fearless Leader; they were merely “some kind of typo problem,” which is a real stretch any way you cut it. How many people assume “typo problem” when a professor of American history notifies them of plagiarism in their self-published work? Third, Wilson implicitly pinned the miscommunication on Dr. McKenzie for not providing him with the specifics: “I really wish he had provided me with the specifics.” Call it a hunch, but for some reason I suspect that had Dr. McKenzie reiterated his concern about the plagiarism, the Fearless Leader would have treated him no differently than the first time he raised his concern. But I could be mistaken.

After denying the possibility that SSAIW contained plagiarized text, someone actually furnished the Fearless Leader with “the specifics,” i.e. they sent side-by-side hard-copy examples of the plagiarism to Wilson so that he could see with his own eyes what he had denied for years. This happened during the week of January 19, 2004 (we don’t have the exact date), which was pert near the zenith of the Southern Slavery scandal. And when Wilson saw that the book he co-authored and edited contained boatloads of plagiarized text, he immediately and secretly pulled the book from Canon Press’ inventory:

As some may recall, a booklet that I cowrote with Steve Wilkins entitled Southern Slavery As It Was was at the center of quite a hubbub last February. What some may not realize is that Canon Press pulled the title from their inventory around the time of that controversy. This was not because we were at all embarrassed by the thesis of the booklet, but rather because someone had informed us that there were some real problems with the citations and footnotes. We pulled the booklet immediately, revised it, and it is now awaiting republication in its new and refurbished condition. I am posting this now because some of our local Banshees have got wind of all this and have raised the cry of Plagiarism (between intermittent sobs of outrage). (“Plagiarism, Aye”; August 4, 2004, emphasis added)

Wilson intended to keep his little plagiarism problem a secret and he certainly had no intention to repent publicly for his sin, but Dr. Nick Gier discovered the plagiarism during summer 2004 and began a campaign called “It’s Not About Slavery; It’s About Plagiarism” (hilarious name), which was when he began gathering signatures from academics all over the Palouse to affirm they would flunk the student who wrote that obnoxious treatise.

These facts are true. Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey published a review of SSAIW that had three typos in it and less than three months later Douglas Wilson became the second eyewitness to the crime of plagiarism in the book that he edited.

THE SIN OF TYPOS
Now let’s return to those vexing typos so that you may see the Fearless Leader’s outrage at the two historians for committing the unpardonable sin in their critique of his book:

And then Rose trumpets the mojo of local professional, credentialed historians, men who do not know how to spell the names of those whom they oppose. Kind of like Churchill going after that “wicked man, Hilter, a man who must be stopped at all costs.” Footnote: see Adulf Hilter, Myne Kumpf. (Douglas Wilson, “The end of real slavery”; Vision 20/20, November 21, 2003)

This is vintage Wilson, distorting the facts in order to make handles (even his comparison of Leithart to Hitler is too much; Eichmann maybe, but not Hitler). Notice that instead of acknowledging the obvious typos as just that — typos — he made the wild claim that Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey didn’t know the names of George Grant and Peter Leithart. He continued:

Rose also points to “judicious and thoughtful” nature of their “academic review.” Her definition of judicious and thoughtful means that apparently her copy of the diatribe does not show the spittle-flecks. But why trust the professionalism of men at one hundred and fifty years when they don’t know what is going on in their own tiny, little town, just a couple blocks away? We are not talking about the points under dispute, we are talking about the fact that it is Peter Leithart, not Leithard, George Grant, not Gary Grant, etc. If you guys really intend to make these gentlemen your champions in the great contest of whose footnotes are the buffest, then may I politely suggest that some remedial work is necessary? You have a couple of Professional Historians who not ready for prime time yet. But it is not that I am demanding this — I like their work just the way it is. “Too long we have slumbered! We must do the hard, academic, Professional work that only we few Credentialed folk can do, so that we may finally stop that nefarious Wouglas Dilson as he attempts to set up a new Zion right here under our credentialed noses!” . . . . (Douglas Wilson, “The end of real slavery”; Vision 20/20, November 21, 2003)

The Fearless Leader makes a remarkable argument here: First, he argues that three ordinary typos constituted factual errors that completely discredited the work, which is an amazing claim if you remember that when an expert historian on nineteenth-century America personally informed him about his plagiarism in SSAIW, he dismissed it as “some kind of typo problem.” In other words, he held that typos didn’t affect the integrity of his historical research.

Second, he argues from the local present (Moscow, 2003) to the distant past (Deep South, antebellum era), claiming that if someone is wrong about the here and now, you cannot trust their knowledge of the there and then. But I wonder if this works backwards; for example, since Wilson is wrong about the there and then does this mean we cannot trust his perception of the here and now? Regardless, if we apply Wilson’s rule to his own work, then we must conclude him utterly incompetent in the matter of Southern history. I say this because he didn’t even get the name of his book correct on its copyright page. Notice that he referred to it as Slavery in the South, As It Was. Why trust the accuracy of a man at one hundred and fifty years when he doesn’t even know the title of his own tiny little book that he co-wrote and edited?

Third, he assumes that Vision 20/20 (or perhaps the whole community) adopted Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey as their official spokesmen and champions, and that their word was to the community what Wilson’s word was to the Kult — inerrant — which wasn’t the case at all because unlike Wilson who refused to heed any criticism of his dreadful book, Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey clearly acknowledged Wilson’s criticism of their book review and published a revised edition that contained no typos!

On the same day as his Vision 20/20 post, Wilson published an op-ed in the Moscow–Pullman Daily News, stating:

This aspect of the fracas is ironic because one of the attacks that has been leveled at me by certain local professional historians (Sean M. Quinlan and William L. Ramsey) is that our research in the slavery booklet was inadequate. But these are gentlemen who had trouble spelling the names of their adversaries. It’s George Grant, not Gary Grant, it’s Francis Schaeffer, not Frances, and Peter Leithart, not Peter Leihard.[1] People who cannot spell our names right should not be trusted with historical sources and refereed journals. . . . I think our operating assumption ought to be that we should not accept the historical credentials of anyone who cannot do enough research to find out that the history conference in February is not about slavery. . . . I am happy to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to a public discussion/debate on this issue with Quinlan and/or Ramsey. Let’s set a date at our earliest mutual convenience. (Douglas Wilson, “The conference was never about slavery”: op-ed, Moscow–Pullman Daily News, November, 21, 2003)

Obviously, this is a variation of his argument in the Vision 20/20 post, though he elevates hostilities by describing himself as an “adversary” of Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey. This is another example of the Fearless Leader’s inability to conduct normal community relations. As one man said, “For Douglas Wilson, there are only two types of people in the world — subjects and enemies.” The man has no moral ability to interact civilly with anyone who criticizes him. They become instant “enemies” — and the greater the criticism, the greater their status as “enemies.” Additionally, Wilson slipped a little lie into his op-ed when he wrote, “I think our operating assumption ought to be that we should not accept the historical credentials of anyone who cannot do enough research to find out that the history conference in February is not about slavery.” Of course, the two historians never made this representation.

Ten days later the Fearless Leader repeated his challenge for a debate:

In my newspaper column a week or so ago, I concluded by inviting Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey to debate. Not hearing anything back from them, I emailed them privately last week to reiterate the offer. After making that second offer I have not heard back either. . . . Here is the courageous step. I am now going to quote from their paper, and I did not get permission. On the second page, the writers say that it “is imperative, therefore, that real historical scrutiny be focused on this unusual performance.” I agree! Well, here is a golden opportunity for professional historians to focus some more real historical scrutiny on my little putt-putt scholarship. . . . (Douglas Wilson, “Proposed Debate”; Vision 20/20, December 1, 2003)

This is an example of the Fearless Leader’s dementia. Human beings of sound judgment do not want to argue that the slaves led happy lives on the plantation and that the Bible permits Christians to enslave fellow humans.

Ten days later Wilson continued his tirade, this time blaming UI administrator Raul Sanchez and Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey for creating the climate of hostility in Moscow:

When Raul [Sanchez] published the overheated rhetoric of Quinlan and Ramsey on his (university-owned) website (e.g. Grant is an “unabashed racist ideologue,”), the unstable on your side know how racist ideologues and their fellow travelers are to be treated. The problem is, the charge was false, all the way down to the ground. Someone needs to take responsibility for the climate. . . . (Douglas Wilson, “Climate”; Vision 20/20, December 10, 2003)

I am sure Wilson truly believed that when he stood firm for that vital Christian doctrine of slave holding, he bore no responsibility for polarizing the community, because in his mind it’s always everyone else’s fault — especially when it’s his fault. This may explain why nine days later the Fearless Leader sent this email to the president of the University of Idaho:

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. . . . 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. (Douglas Wilson, private email to the president of the University of Idaho, December 19, 2003)

Please notice that Wilson makes no effort to demonstrate how “the Quinlan/Ramsey essay [was] slanderous, defamatory, inaccurate, sloppy, and, to the point of your concern, unnecessary.” He merely asserted it, ex cathedra, and expected the University of Idaho to bow before his judgment. He had lived in Doug’s Universe of Make Believe (DUMB) for so long that he really believed his demand for censorship carried weight.[2]

HATESPLOTCH
On January 22, 2003, Douglas Wilson’s son-in-law Ben Merkle, who was and still is a professor at New Saint Andrews College, announced the debut of a Kult website called hatesplotch.net, and according to this letter, it was the Kult’s official response to Drs. Quinlan’s and Ramsey’s book review of SSAIW. Here is one of the opening posts from that website (unfortunately, we do not have the whole site archived so we don’t know with certainty what the original first page said):

Wilkins and another character named George Grant. . . Wait just a second. This is worth noting. It’s pretty much obvious to us all now that George Grant took that name to throw us off, much like the way Canon Press published that book condemning racism to keep us from noticing their racism. After all, the name “Grant” makes us think of that peace loving, tolerant, lovable, huggable General Grant. Or maybe that handsome Cary Grant. Or maybe those benevolent Pell Grants. But no. Dr. Gier saw through the nominal camouflage and recognized him as none other than the neo-Confederate, white supremacist George Grant (although credit for the exposing of his twin and sidekick Gary Grant goes to Doctors Quinlan and Ramsey). Now Wilkins and Grant both have written positive things about the novel Heiland. This book appears to be about the revolutionary overthrow of a government, although none of us have read the book to preserve our own innocence. We are currently asking that anyone who has a copy of this book “volunteer” to hand it over for destruction. . . . (Ben Merkle (NSA professor and Wilson’s son-in-law), “A Favorable Review of Dr. Gier’s Upcoming Article,” www.hatesplotch.net, January 22, 2004)

Well, it’s not very clever but it’s clear that the Kult leadership went out of its way to manufacture another platform to get more mileage out of those three typos. Please notice again that the three errors were not merely “some kind of typo problem.” It was cause célèbre to thoroughly discredit the scholarship of Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey.

ATTENTION HISTORIANS
We now come to the point in time when we know that the Fearless Leader knew that SSAIW was replete with plagiarized text. As noted, he became an eyewitness to this historic fact sometime during the week of January 19, 2004. Therefore, we know with certainty that when the Fearless Leader wrote the following post for hatesplotch, he knew firsthand that SSAIW contained editorial errors that were “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious,” otherwise known as plagiarism:

A recent critique published of Southern Slavery As It Was was what other scholars call “way scholarly.” This can be seen at a glance by simply counting the footnotes in it — forty-one of them in a mere eleven pages! Our only problem with the piece is that when these distinguished authors spit on their hands, rolled up their sleeves, and really got into the juicy bits, they (when the fever of professional historical scholarship hit) forgot to footnote those really insightful parts. So in a random fit of public spirit, we did some checking and herewith append the following footnotes to the following section, a section desperately in need of a little more scholarly festooning.

“As we see it, Wilson and Wilkins hope to whitewash the legacy of Southern history.(1) They do this, it seems, because they fantasize about a new Southern cause — an evangelical redemption, the creation of a New Jerusalem (2). They believe that the South is historically the locus of Christian regeneration (3). The South is God’s promised land for the chosen white race (4), a race that will redeem all others through blood and fire (5).”

1. As noted by Sami Rami Dumbunni in his seminal article “Great Experiments in Telepathy,” Psychic Friends Network Peer Review (Calcutta, India: Astral Whoosh Press, 1994), pp. 201–254.
2. Hal Lindsey, The Late Great State of Illinois (Carbondale, IL: Chickaboom Press, 2002), p. 62. Lindsey argues for a New Jerusalem that descends from heaven down to the Midwest, as opposed to the South, but he nevertheless gives a fair review of all the positions.
3. Quinlan and Ramsey, writing in “What All Us Scholars Instinctively Know” in Brain Barf Journal (Wouk, IO: Cow Town University Press, 1999), p. 150.
4. Karl Barth addressed this question in excruciating detail in his monumental work. See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (Riggins, ID: Huckleberry Press, 1988), pp. 201–222. Unfortunately, the great theologian did not come down definitively in favor of Tuscaloosa as the site of the rebuilt Temple, although this appears to be the consensus of most theologians today. See Most Theologians Review, Vol. 17, No. 3., 1998.
5. Johnny Walker Red Blood, Fire, Soil and Thunder (Toad Flats, Arkansas: Fever Pitch Publications, 1999), p. 28. The first chapter of this book is simply outstanding. Unfortunately, the quality declines shortly thereafter and Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey take no position on the alleged conspiracy between International Jewry and the alien microbes of Star System XL001. (Douglas Wilson, “Additional Footnotes for Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey,” www.hatesplotch.net, January 27, 2004)

Again, it’s not very clever but this acid attack makes one fact abundantly clear: The Fearless Leader positively resented Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey for challenging his scholarship. If you can’t see the bitterness dripping from Wilson’s fingertips, it’s probably because his gall has covered your screen. I’m sure that after he wrote this he had to call 911 so that paramedics could inject his spleen with more bile — and he wrote it knowing that another professional historian had just furnished him with undeniable proof that he committed plagiarism. I don’t know why Wilson made “footnotes” his point of ridicule here or in previous posts, because no one ever made footnotes an issue, except him. Of course, the irony is that he hung his hat on the phrase “real problems with the citations and footnotes” to describe his plagiarism. But the point you have to see is Wilson’s brazen hypocrisy. He thought that he could keep his dirty little secret to himself, which gave him that much more courage to lampoon Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey in public on a Kult-sponsored website. What a brave and honorable man.

Our next entry from hatesplotch is dated the week of the so-called “history” conference and by now it’s clear that he had his storyline in place — distort, misrepresent, and deride at all costs:

A public forum entitled “How Dare Christians Question Our Authority?” will be held Saturday, February 7, at 4pm at the University of Idaho Commons, Horizon/Aurora room.

The forum will discuss the ordination credentials needed before one should be allowed to open one’s lips concerning any secular/establishment orthodoxy. The forum is so concerned to uphold professional ordination standards that it has called upon Rev. Sean Quinlan and Rev. William Ramsey, experts in French medical history and the American Revolution respectively, to bring their expertise to bear on the Civil War.

Rev. Quinlan will give the lecture “French Nobility Knows Best,” and Rev. Ramsey will provide tips from the New York Times on how real historians can freely make-up words for any quotation. Stan Thomas, former director of the Campus Christian Center will give the talk, “Bring Your Scissors,” explaining how the Bible really is an Enlightenment document after all, with tips on how nice Christians can use incense to appease Enlightenment idols.

The forum was prompted by the imminent outbreak of slavery all over the Palouse. People will soon be hijacking other people on Main Street, and the state and federal governments have no means of quelling this threat. Only forums can help. Subsequent forums will discuss the forthcoming invasions of UFOs, Hobbits, and Canadians. (Simon, “hate splotch update #56: Forum on Silencing Christian Blasphemy Planned for UI,” www.hatesplotch.net, February 4, 2004)

Here we see “Simon,” which was a pseudonym for Wilson or one of his thugs, pound Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey. Notice the Wilsonnuendo: he implies that since they were not experts in Civil War history, they were not qualified to address SSAIW. But this is just deceit because when Dr. McKenzie tried correcting the Fearless Leader, Wilson didn’t recognize his credentials at all.

Finally, this is the last entry that we have archived from hatesplotch.net:

Mr. and Mrs. Backbone [award]
Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey
Let’s not talk about the footnotes. Let’s not talk about the quality of the scholarship. We can discuss those another time. Right now, let’s talk raw courage. The Doctors wrote an article attacking local pastor Douglas Wilson, making some fanciful speculations regarding his feelings towards minorities. But rather than actually meet with the man, call him or maybe email, they took the road of scholarly research and made stuff up. (Oops. Was that a comment on scholarship?) But on top of that, when challenged to debate their work, they remained silent as the tomb and ignored the challenge. When invited several times to speak at an NSA Disputatio, they had conflicts in their schedules, they had obligations, they were very sorry, but they couldn’t quite squeeze it in. Until they received a note from on high instructing UI characters to knock off the attacks on local Christians. This was then interpreted to mean that they were not to give a defense for their work and they gleefully reported this alibi to NSA. “I would love to, I really would, but mother made me promise.” Hats off to our men of courage. (Theodore, “ANNOUNCING Awards to Community Members,” www.hatesplotch.net, February 10, 2004; this same post awarded the “Robespierre and the Steam Donkey: Dark Secrets” award to “Dr. Quinlan BA MA PhD Super Scholarly Extra Devastating”)

Here we see Wilson or one of his goons (most likely Wilson) using the pseudonym “Theodore” to make a familiar accusation — Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey refused to meet with Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, to discuss their book review of SSAIW before they published it. Therefore, in the spirit of Christian kindness, this entry of hatesplotch.net awarded them the “Mr. and Mrs. Backbone” award. This entry is rife with falsehoods, such as accusing the historians of “making stuff up” and stating that they “received a note from on high instructing UI characters to knock off the attacks on local Christians.” These statements bear no relation to reality and in hindsight I suspect that these were the lies he fed to his loyalists to create an air of victory for the Kult over the UI.

CONCLUSION
In the end, Wilson has left us with a written record that paints the portrait of a petulant little man who has no capacity to tolerate public criticism of any note. More importantly, with this scandal (which ran for five uninterrupted months) Wilson established for us his pattern of dealing with others, regardless of their standing in or out of the Church — abuse them, demean them, pressure them, misrepresent them, lie about them, and then beat his chest — because he is a very brave man. In fact, he is the bravest hypocrite in all the world.

Thank you.

[1] At the risk of appearing pettier than the Fearless Leader, please notice his misspelling here: Drs. Quinlan & Ramsey misspelled Leithart with the word “Leithard”; whereas Wilson represented the typo as “Leihard.” If we apply Wilson’s argument to himself, then we cannot trust him.

[2] Interestingly, less than four years before Wilson sent this email, he managed to steal a letterhead from the UI vice-president’s office so that he could wage culture war against the community, and when the UI suggested possible legal action against the Kult, Doug Jones contended, “It makes them come off as very humorless.” I guess the Fearless Leader didn’t appreciate the humor of two historians describing his book as a “catalogue of incompetence.”

Too Much Fun in the Land of Cotton

2008-05-15T08:09:00.000-07:00

I am having too much fun here; there really should be a law against this.

Again, thumbing through the archives looking for this and that, I came across this hilarious email exchange between a member of the Kult and Rosemary Huskey, who is one of the brightest lights on the Palouse — as a Christian and an academic.

This particular chat took place on Vision 20/20 during Wilson’s little slavery scandal of 2003–2004; it speaks for itself:

From: “Jackie Woolf”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Slaves vs non-slave ownership

Seems to me, you all are making Pastor Wilson’s argument (which he has stated and re-stated many a time.)

To own a slave is not what he recommends or supports; however IF a slave is owned then treat him/her correctly and in a Godly manner. What on earth is so difficult for anyone to understand?

I just don’t get it.

There are plenty of issues that Jesus never specifically spoke about, but his general admonition still covers it all: The Golden Rules need to be remembered and followed.

Thank you.

Jackie Woolf

From: “DonaldH675”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:02 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Slaves vs non-slave ownership

Jackie,

Is that the rule that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? If so, I would be glad to have Doug Wilson come clean my house, tend my grandchildren, weed my flower garden, work in my fields, sleep in my unheated shop on some filthy blankets, and cook my dinner (since I would be at church) all for free and all forever. I believe I’d change his name to Toby. He’d have lots of free time because it would be illegal on my little farm for him to read or write. If he tried to get away I probably wouldn’t even whip or brand him, but I would surely chastise him for not appreciating the situation that God had placed him in. Now that I think of it, I could also use the help of his wife and children and grandchildren (although I would probably sell off his elderly non-productive parents). I would be following the “Christian” slave-holding procedures that Doug Wilson defends as biblically based while providing him the opportunity to live out the Golden Rule. Please note: my slave holding would not be racially motivated, because I am not a racist.

I’m glad I’m not in the land of cotton, but I do agree that for most well-informed folks, the old times there are not forgotten.

Rose Huskey

The next time you have free time to scan a blog, grab yourself a cup of java and read any of these threads from Cleaning House:

Uncle Doug’s Cabin

Whited Sepulchres

Nuisance Andrews

Every post is as good as the one above.

“Now, Toby, fetch me my slippers, boy, and ya’ll be quiet or I’ll whip ya.”

Thank you.

A Big Fat One

2008-05-15T06:32:00.000-07:00

You know, just when I gave ol’ Beelzeblog the benefit of the doubt, or, if you prefer, the judgment of charity, I suddenly discover documented proof that I erred unnecessarily on the side of kindness.

Of course, I speak of Sunday’s post (“Copyright Dealies”) where I republished the Fearless Leader’s taunt of Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey in the matter of their factual rebuttal to his and Wilkins’ loathsome revision of American history, when he wrote:

At the top of their paper is the most interesting copyright notice I have ever seen. After the normal copyright dealies, it says, “Please do not cite, quote, summarize, or otherwise reproduce without permission of the authors.” Not being a professional historian myself, I am unfamiliar with this kind of restriction. (emphasis added)

Yesterday I was thumbing through more data on my hard drive and discovered the original pdf that the University of Idaho freely distributed on their website during Wilson’s little slavery problem, and I noticed that the copyright notice doesn’t even remotely resemble Wilson’s characterization of it. Now, I could be wrong. The UI distributed hard copies of the pamphlet (mine is stuffed in a box somewhere in my garage) and it’s possible that those versions were not generated from the pdf, but that strikes me as unlikely. It seems even more unlikely when you note the exceptionally simple copyright notice on the pdf (below) and the strong probability that they would have taken extra precautions on the electronic version of their document because it would receive wider circulation than any hard copy. But again, I could be wrong.

Here are the first and last pages of Drs. Quinlan’s and Ramsey’s response to Wilson and Wilkins:

I wonder if it’s consistent with the Fearless Leader’s personality to tell a big fat one about someone else in order to make himself look that much more impressive. I sure hope not.

Thank you.

Nastiness Disguised as Humor

2008-05-13T17:28:00.000-07:00

Still laying more groundwork for an upcoming post: today I want you to witness a public email exchange between three members of Christ Church, Moscow, and one member of the community, which took place on the local listserv Vision 20/20 during the Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004.

To set the context, the Fearless Leader had just sent an invitation to the community to join him at the Kenworthy Theatre for his “This is my town” hall meeting. As previously noted, the Kult called the town hall meeting after their two quarter-page ads (here and here) failed miserably to win anyone to the cause of Southern slavery or the Christian gospel. If I said they went over like the proverbial lead balloon, I’d be lying. It was more like the Hindenburg’s arrival in Jersey.

So Wilson adopted a more dramatic tack. The town fool rented the town’s historic stage to star in a play that he titled “On the Recent Christ Church Controversy,” and since Wilson had already offended pretty much as many people as possible, most of the participants on Vision 20/20 didn’t respond well to his invitation.

Enter a woman named Debi Robinson-Smith, who replied to the invite by quoting from the Kult’s two ads and drawing the most reasonable conclusion that a non-Christian could infer. The Fearless Leader’s answered her (and others); then she replied to him once again.

Enter the Operations Manager for Canon Press, Lucy Zoe Jones (sister of Doug Jones), who contacted Ms. Smith by off-list email, and you have to notice her manipulative approach by misquoting Ms. Smith and attributing words to her that she never wrote.

Enter Nathan Wilson, son of the Fearless Leader and at that time professor at New Saint Andrews, who took off-list umbrage at Ms. Smith’s response to Lucy Zoe Jones.

And remember, these are the folks who were supposedly trying to rehabilitate their public image after the month-long quarter-page fiascoes. The emails speak for themselves; you have to read them:

----- Original Message -----
From: “Debi Smith”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:39 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Letter of Regret

Actually, I don’t really regret not attending the Doug and pony show. I don’t regret not poking sticks at snakes either.

In the Conclusion section of Doug Jones’ adorable little monograph The Biblical Offense of [Racism], he says:

“The Biblical worldview can justifiably condemn racist attitudes and actions because such are contrary to the Word of God. Many non-Christians claim to oppose racism, but they cannot justify their condemnation. Their worldview precludes placing any significance or value on human life.”

And in their (in my humble opinion poorly written) diatribes disguised as information, the all-male Board of Christ Church has branded me and mine as fakers, humorless, joyless, and encouragers of racism and violence.

Why on earth would I expend the energy to listen to these self-congratulatory delusionaries say anything? I’m pretty clear that they reject out of hand any one who doesn’t follow their credo, and have no intention of being anywhere near the Kenworthy that night.

I vote to join Joan and other like-minded folks in a more gainful and joyous gathering at the nearest food and drink establishment not owned by anyone connected with the dougies. . . .

Just call me a happy a fun-loving unrepentant feminist humanist Pagan (and beautiful in my non-submission!!!).

Debi Robinson-Smith

----- Original Message -----
From: “Douglas”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 12:29 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Fwd: Town hall meeting

Visionaries,

Allow me to continue to extend a cordial invitation to our town hall meeting. December 11, 7 pm, at the Kenworthy. We hope to answer every question we can, on the spot, and with opportunity for follow-up questions. We will be able to do this without the intervention of print media gumming up the works. Actually, that was not fair. The Argonaut and the Trib have done a really decent job in this hubbub. But back to the town hall meeting, if you have a question, or an objection, please bring it. We will address them as best we can, and as cordially as we can.

In his great book Orthodoxy, Chesterton once said, “This began to be alarming. It looked not so much as if Christianity was bad enough to include any vices, but rather as if any stick was good enough to beat Christianity with.”

The aptness of this observation, as well as the crying need for Rose to change her plans and come to our town hall meeting, is seen in the following:

Credenda Agenda, which I think of as your baby, carries an article in the current issue under the heading Femina, which positively encourages godly women to expect a divine reward if they rat out their dissenting husbands to the pastor and elders of the church. (This reporting is essential if their husbands are fools, making a stink about the church or, are unrepentant about questioning the decisions of church leadership. And that is different from life under Chairman Mao or Comrade Stalin how? And how desperate are you guys anyhow?)

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

But here is the real issue:

“You Christians teach that wives should submit to their husbands, right?”

“Right.”

“What if a husband is beating his wife? Then what should she do?”

At this point, this becomes a choose [sic] your own adventure novel. Suppose the (horrible) answer were:

“Nothing. She should be submissive, and just take it.”

At this point the Tolerance Police would set to caterwauling about how such Christians hate women. And that caterwauling would not obscure the fact that, on this question, they would happen to be right. A blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. No human authority on earth is absolute, and each legitimate authority must defer to other legitimate authorities according to their respective spheres. This involves family government, church government and civil government. There are times, Rose, when a woman should call the cops. There are times when she should call her pastor or elders. I am sorry you do not appear to think so. It appears that feminism is still evolving.

So if the answer were no, as it was in the Femina column she mentions, and the wife urged to take her problem with an abusive husband to the elders, the caterwauling ascends yet again. Chairman Mao! Stalin! Returning to the quote from Chesterton, it begins to looks as though Christ Church were not bad enough to encompass any evil, but rather that any rock is good enough to throw at us.

One of the advantages of a town hall meeting is that is should make abundantly clear what our differences actually are (and they are significant), but it should also make clear that kicking puppies is not part of our liturgy. So for those whose minds are already made up, and who do not want to be confused with any facts, I hope you enjoy whatever alternative activity you select. I would recommend sitting cross-legged on the floor, fingers in ears, while singing the national anthem at a medium level. “Ohhh, say can you SEEEE . . .” Then, the day after the meeting, you can post to this forum to let us all know that you found our arguments and answers singularly unconvincing, and that you will see us at the SUB.

Bill London asked Roy Atwood about his quoted comment that “this booklet was not published as a scholarly work.” I’ll let Roy address whether the Daily News got the quote right (imagine . . . its [sic] easy if you try), and, if so, what he meant by it. But please allow my take on it for a minute. Our booklet was obviously not a scholarly work by local professional historians because we spelled all the names right, quoted our sources accurately, did not make up facts to suit ourselves, did not post our work on a government web site illegally, and we are willing to engage in debate with those who challenge our work. Consequently, we admit with shame that our booklet did not meet the Exacting Standards established by the Quinlan/Ramsey piece (“copyrighted 2003, no thinking about this work without permission from the authors!”).

Debi Robinson-Smith takes umbrage at the point we made re: “fakers, humorless, joyless, and encouragers of racism and violence.” But we were not maintaining that every last secularist is humorless, etc. We do believe that the logic of secularism tends that way, and that multitudes of secularists have followed this logic out as evidenced by the general howling in this controversy. Exceptions? Sure — Jim Fisher of the Trib. Carl and Andreas on this list, et al. But we reiterate that the fundamentalism of the left is not very attractive, rejoices in pettiness, hesitates not when it comes to circulating a lie (and when caught in a lie, simply moves on to the next one), and likes to initiate pogroms in the name of inclusive diversity. Have the deadly earnest “Not in Our Town” folks picked out an appropriate colored shape for us to have to pin on our clothes yet? I suggest a big “I” for Intolerant.

We would love to see any of you at the town hall meeting. Really. Melynda, hope your kids get better. Hope you can make it.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

----- Original Message -----
From: “Debi Smith”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Summons to Town Hall

Thanks again for the repeated invite, Doug. I still decline. I do not believe you have anything new to add — yes, my mind is firmly closed in regards to any additional defense you might have, or “answers” to any questions you might be asked. I may be a “liberal” (whatever that means), but I am capable of recognizing the difference between a discussion and another Wilson Rant. I’ve seen you in action before, and am simply not interested in a repeat of the refrain “Jesus loves Doug, this I know because his bible tells him so”.

Those of us who are circulating the Not In Our Town sign-up sheet are from a variety of groups and interests, all of whom find your intolerance for those not of your persuasion both stupid and annoying. I do owe you a note of thanks, however. Through your creative revision of history you have inadvertently introduced me to a whole new set of friends. While you have been busily scrambling to explain yourself in every newspaper on the Palouse, I have been enjoying the company of Christians of many stripes, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, Lesbians, Gays, Historians, Feminist Women of Color, Birkenstock-Wearing Old Hippies, and Balding Homer Simpson Look-Alikes.

I’m having great time, and all without your narrow Biblical interpretations, your “standards”, and especially without your “comedy”. I’m finding the company of these folks full of laughter, intelligent conversation, creativity, and joy.

So, thanks for being the narrow, rigid, lock-stepping bunch you are — it introduced me to a delightful crowd!

By the way, your personal selection of the letter “I” to mark your group is not a bad idea. I’m not in favor of this type of singling-out behavior, but whatever blows your skirt up! It might be handy to be able to identify, through the letter “I” for “idiotic”, your entire group.

Avoiding you like the plague, having lots of laughs (partly at your expense),

Debi Robinson-Smith

Ms. Smith,

I don’t know you, never spoken with you, and can’t remember why you hate me. You’re certainly free to *hate* all things Wilson; however, I find it rather strange that you would hate an entire group of people without even a discussion. To me, it smacks of ignorance.

I’m not fond of the KKK because of their hatred of people of color, their ignorance, their bitterness, and because they lump people together based on the color of their skin. I don’t hate them. I pity them and I take every opportunity to educate them. It’s difficult because they tend to be ignorant and small minded. And like you . . . their mind is solidly closed. Could you perhaps tell me how you differ from them in your hatred of all things Wilson . . . including me? I don’t intend to wear an “I” to satisfy your hatred of me. If you wouldn’t mind walking around with a sheet on, it would help so I could keep the kids away from you. I’d rather they didn’t learn your brand of hate.

I’m not fond of hypocrites either.

Lucy Zoe Jones

----- Original Message -----
From: “Debi Smith”
To: “Lucy Zoe”; “Vision2020”
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 12:47 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: What’s the difference?

Lucy, I don’t know you, care what your beliefs are, or hate you. You were not even on my radar until you chose to contact me personally — I would never do that to you without an invitation (which you have now given me). If you review my posts, you will see I have not used the dreaded “H” word — I don’t even hate Doug. I dislike the things he stands for, I dislike his tactics, and I dislike that folks like you feel it necessary to contact me on his behalf. Nowhere in my posts did I indicate that I would force you to wear the letter “I”. That was Doug’s suggestion. A careful reading of posts would make your tirade more credible and accurate. Try to do that prior to e-mailing me again. In fact, don’t e-mail me personally, and I won’t e-mail you. Let’s keep the discussion on the V2020 list — we have nothing private to say to one another. But, thanks for the “heads up” regarding how you feel about those who dissent with Doug.

Debi Robinson-Smith

You’re taking an offline email public? Slick work.

NDW

----- Original Message -----
From: “Debi Smith”
To: “Nate Wilson”; “Vision2020”
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: OFFLINE: Re: [Vision2020] Re: What’s the difference?

You bet I did, Nate, and am doing it again with yours. From past experience with folks who disagree with my public and open sentiments, it is best to nip in the bud the harassment that can take place when folks decide to respond outside the discussion forum. Yes, we have been asked in the past (and asked one another) to take our religious discussions off-line. Seems to me, however, that Doug Wilson and his followers have assisted in keeping this discussion open and on-line. Something about goose, gander, and sauce comes to mind. . . . I don’t want to talk to any of Doug’s folks privately, and we have nothing to say to one another without witnesses. Please pass it on — I’m publicly stating here that if you don’t want unsolicited personal posts you send to me appearing in V2020, don’t send ’em. I promise to only respond publicly, having nothing to say to you that I don’t want others to hear.

Cordially,

Debi

Debi,

I’m really not sure who else to turn to. I know you’ve said you can’t keep a secret, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take. I’m desperate. Every morning I get up and drag myself to a breakfast of slippy eggs. My wife will not stop making me slippy eggs. She insists that I don’t really want eggs that are fully cooked and that slippy eggs wake me right up. I know my own mind darn it. I think. If I have to eat another slippy egg, I think I might, well, I think I might not eat them again, and then she’ll leave me. Do you know a good marital counsellor? Would you be willing to counsel us? I know that’s a lot to ask, and you never invited me to send you this letter, but I’m at the end of my tether. Could you at least tell me where the nearest needle exchange is?

NDW

----- Original Message -----
From: “Debi Smith”
To: “Nate Wilson”; “Vision2020”
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Nate Wilson’s offline reply to What’s the difference?

As you can see, the promise to publicly post Nate’s unsolicited personal messages has been ineffective. I’m somewhat surprised at the nastiness disguised as humor, but it re-enforces for me what these folks are about.

Debi R-S

Indeed.

Thank you.

To the Editor

2008-05-12T17:29:00.001-07:00

So I’m gathering data for the next post in the Kult Police State series and discovered that I had saved electronic copies of many of the letters to the editor from Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal. Honestly, I had no recollection that these were here but when I started reading through them I realized that these would help you understand the magnitude of the scandal, if you don’t already. Unfortunately, I did not save letters from all the papers, just the Moscow–Pullman Daily News and a few that struck me as worthwhile from the Lewiston Morning Tribune and the UI Argonaut. And to my shame I admit that I did not document the dates of these letters, so in this respect I sadly confess that my blog is not fully documented.

My text document with the letters is 107 pages long and contains roughly 42,000 words, which should give you an indication of the number of letters Wilson’s little slavery problem generated, and since this is my blog I make no effort to be fair and impartial. I have weeded out all letters written by monkey boys to defend the Fearless Leader and I weeded out as much liberal drivel as possible. That said, these 24 letters should give you a feel for the temperature of Moscow in 2003–2004.

Finally, the letter by Dr. Joe Morecraft deserves its own post, which I intend to write, but suffice to say that Wilson wrote an op-ed (or letter to the editor) where he stated that the RPCUS declared him a heretic because they took offense to a Credenda editorial criticizing Confederate flag wavers. Of course, the RPCUS’s Resolution neglects to cite this nugget, which really doesn’t matter because we’ve established that Wilson has a fertile imagination not subject to the Ninth Commandment.

Here they are:

Racial subjugation is evil
There are a couple points worth reiterating with respect to Doug Wilson’s position on slavery and racism.

First, slavery in the antebellum United States was a devastatingly racist institution. There is no other intelligent characterization possible; one race wholly subjugated another on the very basis of race. A mere denial of this is vehemently racist.

Actually postulating that such racial subjugation resulted in a remotely harmonious inter-racial relationship is not only ludicrous, it’s plain evil.

Neither Wilson’s wide-eyed incredulity (assuredly feigned) at the reaction to such a vile position, his reported civility in interpersonal discourse, nor his recent theatrics denying he is a racist alter the nature of the position he’s assumed.

This is, perhaps, the least Christ-like position one could adopt with respect to slavery in the United States.

Second, were Wilson simply a harmless crackpot, he could easily be ignored. Unfortunately, he is far from harmless. As is well known, he’s a church leader. His attempts to build Moscow into a utopia for his church as well as his leadership positions at institutions of learning render him one who requires active opposition.

Every time a member of the Moscow community spends a dime in a local business that donates a share of its profits to Wilson’s church, that person is contributing monetarily to the indoctrination of our youth to the hateful positions he espouses. He certainly has the right to have his views and advocate them actively. However those members of the community of Moscow who find such views reprehensible have a duty to counter them.

Jack Sullivan
Moscow

Not very Christian
I am one of Jim Fisher’s liberal friends who cannot have an open mind about Doug Wilson. I first noticed Doug Wilson in the late 1980s when he labeled those of us seeking to establish a sister city relationship with a small community in Nicaragua as “communist bedfellows.” Several times after that he and his associates attacked the sister city organization in letters to the local paper. By the way, the Moscow Sister City Association is now 17 years old; it is a vibrant organization of friendship and help to Villa El Carmen, Nicaragua.

Through the years there have been many other public statements and attacks from Doug Wilson and his followers which have been astonishing coming from people who claim they are Christian; an example is the mean-spirited attack on the public schools in the last school board election in Moscow.

But to assert that slavery was a harmonious institution, one characterized by racial affection and patriarchal benevolence, is pedantic, chauvinistic and plainly immoral. It is also embarrassing coming from people who profess to follow Christian, ethical principles of love and respect for fellow human beings.

Mary Voxman
Moscow

Wilson’s ‘truth’ is changing
Doug Wilson says his Christ Church is all about following the absolute unchanging truth of the Bible, but now it looks like that truth is bending to the political wind.

First, in the book he co-authored in 1996, Southern Slavery, As It Was, Wilson directly and specifically supports slavery. On page 17: “the Bible is clear that Christians may own slaves.” On page 21: “Owning slaves is not an abomination.”

However, in the Christ Church statement printed as an advertisement in the Daily News (Page 3A, weekend edition, Nov. 15–16), the position is completely different. In the fourth paragraph: “slavery has always been an evil needing to be abolished.”

Second, Wilson explains in his book his clear opposition to the American abolitionist movement (the political effort to end slavery in the United States). On Page 10: “nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States.”

However, according to that Church statement published in the Daily News, “we side with nonviolent abolitionism.”

Third, Wilson’s book does not mention the casualties and pain of the Civil War in the defense of slavery and the Confederacy.

However, now the Church statement from the Daily News says that the real core of its position is “against the butchery of 600,000 persons in the Civil War.”

If Wilson’s tenets and proclamations are based on unchanging Biblical truth, why have they changed so completely?

Bill London
Moscow

Wilson should be Christ-like
The recent homophobic and fascistic anti-gay comments of Doug Wilson have confirmed my suspicion about many people who claim to be Christian. They do not attempt to be Christ-like but merely Christ-loving, and they will use any means necessary to re-create the world in their own psychopathic image.

Wilson magnanimously suggests that we should banish gays and lesbians rather than exterminate them. Hurray. He is one step this side of Hitler. Jesus Christ, save me from the Christ-lovers.

Paul Weingartner
Moscow

Slavery always has been wrong
When I was just a baby white redneck growing up in Georgia, I loved Dixie and the Stars and Bars and all that good stuff about how great we were and how we could lick 10 Yankees each. And when they integrated my high school, I wasn’t sure it was the right thing to do. And to her dying day my momma thought we could have worked things out, if they’d just left us alone.

But sometimes you just can’t be left alone. And you shouldn’t be.

This is one of those times. I was wrong then about segregation, and slavery is wrong, was wrong, and always will be wrong. Geeze — why are we still having this argument?

Well, probably because some of us are having trouble connecting the dots. So, to be plain spoken: If we think writing a screed defending Southern slavery and the gracious old South is anything but an attempt to court black-hating, Jew-hating, hetero/loving-other/hating white supremacists, we need to stop smoking that stuff. Or, phrased more delicately, perhaps we should consider the ramifications of our thoughts and reexamine them.

Meanwhile, I whole-heartedly agree with those who think this ridiculous community argument ought to have stopped by now. I’m with you. All it takes is for the author of the nonsense to say, “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”

It’s not that hard (see my third paragraph). And it is about slavery. And it is about “death or exile” for those we love.

Jim Weddell
Pullman

Church board ignores facts in booklet
I wasn’t going to write any more letters about Doug Wilson’s book, but when I saw the ad which has been run several times by the Christ Church Board, I felt someone needed to set the record straight.

The good news is that the board says “slavery has always been an evil needed to be abolished.” The bad news is that they ignore the fact that in his book, Southern Slavery, As It Was, their pastor, Wilson, says just the opposite. To quote the book, “Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?” The book also says, “the New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves.”

If Wilson’s and Wilkins’ book was meant to be a condemnation of the bloodshed of the Civil War, it is well hidden. Only one sentence in the 40-page booklet seems to make this point, when it says “the remedy which has been applied has been far worse than the disease ever was.” The rest of the book covers such topics as the Bible’s view of slavery, the treatment of slaves, the strength of the slave family, the myth of slave breeding and the stability of the slave family.

No one has accused Christ Church, as they say, of being part of “some vast conspiracy to impose slavery on the Palouse.” Rather, people have questioned Wilson’s defense of slavery as being permitted by the Bible, and the rosy picture he paints of the multi-racial harmony of Southern slavery. These assertions are being challenged in the name of human rights and historical accuracy.

Joann Muneta
Moscow

Church cleared up ‘mystery’
Christ Church certainly has shown its position on equality — but one has to be armed with a dictionary to know that. They state in a recent paid advertisement in the Daily News:

“Christ Church has a long published history of revealing the uglinesses and hypocrisies of (among other things) . . . egalitarians . . .”

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary an egalitarian is an advocate or supporter of a “belief that all people should have equal political, social and economic rights.” As a firm egalitarian, I’m so glad they made that clear.

Connie Driver
Moscow

Slavery is violence
Pastor Doug Wilson’s asserting that slavery could have worked if it had not been rooted in violence, misses the whole point that the whole system is based in violence, bondage and ruin and could never produce any thing good.

African men, women and children were hunted down, captured, placed in chains, herded onto ships and then transported all over the world. They had no rights, were denied U.S. citizenship, or any of the other basic freedom common at the time. Slavery was then and is now abhorrent — unjust and un-Christian.

Harold G. Smith
Lewiston

Wilson enjoys the attention
We have been watching with great interest the commotion swirling around Doug Wilson. Our son, then completely closeted, attended Logos School from seventh-grade until half-way through his junior year but had to leave because Wilson discovered (through my son’s “friends” at the time) that he was gay. We were told he could stay if he kept quiet and took classes from Wilson to “become” heterosexual. Obviously this was not an option.

We never would have gotten involved in this discussion — we have never actually spoken to Wilson — but we recently ended up on a plane with him where he inexplicably tried to intimidate and stare down my son. Why he would push us I don’t know, since my son was there several years and saw many things, but then we have never considered Wilson connected to the real world. His is a world of predestination, elitist Calvinism, and the belief that he is part of the “Godly Elect” while we, obviously, are not.

To us, Wilson is simply someone who doesn’t realize how most of the world sees him, as someone who enjoys getting attention, even if it’s negative. He is a minister who has not attended seminary, believing that mainstream ministers become “prideful” at seminary, with especially strong feelings reserved for the Catholic and, I am sure now, Episcopal Church.

There were good things about Logos School, particularly the excellent education, and also some unpleasant things. This school is a reflection of Wilson’s beliefs, and for this reason we have never patronized his businesses. We consider them his businesses since Christ Church members pay a substantial tithe, and we choose not to help the church buy up more of Moscow’s downtown. And if some of us choose this, it is our right.

Corinne and Jay Hunter
Moscow

Which Doug are we to believe?
In the article “Group opposes slavery booklet” (Daily News, Nov. 21), Doug Jones is quoted as saying that “no member of Christ Church supports slavery.”

If that quote is correct, then the views of Doug Wilson, pastor of Christ Church, must have changed recently. I certainly hope that they have. But if so, then Rev. Wilson should admit (out loud) that what he wrote in the booklet, Southern Slavery, As it Was, was 100 percent wrong.

This is what he says in the booklet:

“The reason why many Christians will be tempted to dismiss the arguments presented in this booklet is that we will say (out loud) that a godly man could have been a slave owner” (page 11).

“Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well” (page 12).

“The Bible teaches that a man may be a faithful Christian and a slave-owner” (page 17).

“Owning slaves is not an abomination. The Bible does not condemn it, and those who believe the Bible are bound to refrain in the same ways” (page 21).

The two Dougs from Christ Church cannot have it both ways. Either slavery is evil or it is not.

Which Doug are we to believe?

Steve Wells
Moscow

False testimony
I was born and raised in the Deep South. I knew many older blacks who had learned to kowtow to whites. I know many, mostly older, deeply religious whites who could tolerate “Neegras” as long as they knew their place and didn’t get “uppity.” This was 100 years after slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment (ratified Dec. 6, 1865).

I would like to ask any apologist for slavery if they had ever lived or would like to live in fawning subservience for fear they would be arrested, beaten, cut, burned, or lynched if they forgot their place. Remember I’m referring to years shortly before and after 1965, not 1865 when Southern blacks were finally recognized as people.

The straightforward evidence of chains, whipping posts, and contemporary photographs of heavily scarred slaves gave silent witness to the fact that slaves often lived under brutal, not idyllic, conditions. To deny this is to perpetrate a bald-faced lie. It reminds me of how creationists mutilate and ignore the evidence the Earth itself gives concerning evolution.

If, in defense of their faith, Christians (Doug Wilson) must lie, and twist or ignore evidence, then they will lose the battle that they most want to win: The battle for the hearts, minds and souls of the young. One would hope witnesses for Christ would deal honestly with material evidence and dispense with spurious apologetics in misguided attempts to imbue callous primitive customs or ignorance with holiness. While faith, by definition, doesn’t require evidence, it is condemned by false testimony.

L.G. Gibson
Asotin

Dear editor,

Apart from whatever Mr. Wilson currently claims about the harmonious state of slavery, I am still distressed about his overall abuse of the Bible. Among his now famously flaunted teachings is that the Bible demands either exile or execution for homosexuals and a similar fate for particularly disrespectful adolescents.

Lately his congregation has had to rise to his defense in a flurry of paid ads. They claim their shepherd’s tortured biblicism is simply upholding the classical Trinitarian faith, and that he is merely immersed in the same tradition as the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox.

As a card-carrying ordained member of one of those churches, I’m obligated to reject their kind flirtation. Our scholars and leaders within these traditions blanch at Mr. Wilson’s kind of handiwork. His dissent, as his flock calls it, leaves him theologically orphaned. Of course, academic and theological isolation serves to keep him relatively safe from accountability. And it makes for a great ruse about being a lone prophet in this hostile environment.

Back in the archives of some of Wilson’s favorite church traditions, sure, we could find him some biblicistic bedfellows. But back then our churches were still proudly protecting slave-trade, drowning and burning those they accused of witchcraft and heresy, torching synagogues and chaining mental patients to filthy beds.

Meanwhile, though, most of his imagined theological circle have broken free from those days and from those hideous readings of biblical texts. We are still stumbling our way forward, usually.

As harmonious as Mr. Wilson continues to feel regarding those times, most of the rest of us don’t miss them. And although he may not wish it, many of us pray for his thorough and speedy emancipation. We welcome and don’t doubt his prayers for us as well.

Rev. Dean Stewart
Moscow

Advertisement is revealing
The Christ Church-sponsored derision and ridicule of the (assumed) secularists behind the “Not in Our Town” petition provides an interesting insight. Derision and ridicule have no place in the practice of Christianity. This will never be more true than those times when the targets are the very persons a Christian should seek to lead to the gospel. Open debate can be a good thing but for a (Christian) church to publicly ridicule anybody shames all Christians.

Every Christian sect I have studied or participated in has held that God is Love. I find it helpful to weigh the statements of self-proclaimed Christians against this: If God is Love, then the voice of God is patient and kind. It is not jealous, pompous, inflated or rude. It does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered and does not brood over injury. The voice of God will not rejoice over wrongdoing but will rejoice with the truth.

I know that many of the signatures on the “Not in Our Town” petition belong to practicing Christians. There was a time when Christians wanted to remove the Jewish community from Rome as well. In my opinion, neither idea was Christ centered. In today’s America, we need to be both careful and tolerant. If Christ Church or petitioners or boycotters seek to bring change or enlightenment, unconditional love is the one tool they must master.

Ken Clark
Moscow

Feeling a little more ill at ease
I attended Christ Church’s and Doug Wilson’s town meeting.

When I arrived, I knew only that Wilson had written that slavery as it existed in the United States before the Civil War did not in his opinion transgress the dictates of the Bible.

I heard and learned much while there, including:
Wilson admitted that on at least one occasion at a Christ Church historical social function a Confederate flag was displayed.

A questioner asserted at some time a classroom at Logos School displayed a photograph of Robert E. Lee and that his birthday was celebrated. Neither Wilson or anyone else denied this assertion.

Included in the reading material given away by Christ Church at the town meeting was an attack on Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center. This organization provided legal services to sue the Aryan Nations and close its compound near Hayden Lake, Idaho. The author of this attack was not Wilson so I wonder why Christ Church reprinted and distributed it.
Adding these three pieces of information to the one I came with caused me to leave much more ill at ease than when I arrived.

Andrew Schwam
Moscow

Arrogant with painful logic
It is not just Doug Wilson’s preachy moral dogmatism that bothers me (“Leftist screeching has accomplished little,” Opinion, Jan. 9). Nor is it simply his derisive comments toward “liberals,” “progressives,” “leftists,” “humanists,” and “homosexuals” — groups that represent the vast majority of my family, friends and colleagues. It is all this together with the fact that he usually makes his arrogant and offensive comments while employing painfully bad logic, or often no logic at all.

For instance, in his essay we are told of “the sin of homosexual behavior” but that “to be a slave-holder is not a sinful condition.” Homosexual behavior is always sinful yet sometimes it is permissible to own slaves. Can anyone in his right mind believe this?

Tell me, Wilson, after the slave is kidnapped, put in chains, and subjected to forced labor, what consolation is it for him to learn that “masters are carefully instructed to treat their slaves right?” Once you decide to hold an innocent person against his will, what could possibly constitute right conduct apart from setting him free?

Lastly, doesn’t Wilson’s “sometimes sinful, sometimes not” view of slavery conflict with his own moral absolutism? Isn’t his view a kind of relativism?

Joe Campbell
Moscow

Actions, behavior are intolerable
I see Doug Wilson is at it again with his campaign of misinformation and revisionist history (Opinion, Jan. 9). He’s trying to convince us the controversy is not about his views on Southern slavery, but it’s about homosexuality. As one who’s followed the controversy, that’s news to me.

Wilson may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but he cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Just because Wilson says something doesn’t make it fact. Once again, Wilson is just simply wrong, and his belated attempt to shift the focus and rewrite our community’s experience is wicked, arrogant and insulting.

It is true Wilson sees modern Christians as needing to fight against “abortion, feminism and sodomy.” Those issues are part of his agenda. However, it’s his justification of slavery and the upcoming “history” conference that got him in hot water this time.

Warning: for any tempted to accept Wilson’s offer to debate, make sure to BYOB (Bring Your Own Bodyguard). If Wilson and his minions don’t like what you have to say, your microphone will be turned off, you will be shouted down, and you will be physically “escorted” from the premises, whether by Christ Church members or their buddies. Think I’m exaggerating? I’m not, for this is exactly what happened to a dissenting participant at Wilson’s Christ Church town hall meeting.

I call on Wilson and his followers to quit playing the religion card and stop accusing those who disagree with theonomy of intolerance. We do not object to your minority beliefs; rather, it’s the intent of your actions and behavior that’s abhorrent and intolerable to those of us who support the Constitution of the United States of America.

Saundra Lund
Moscow

Wilson’s ranting has worn thin
Once again, Doug Wilson gets his colossal ego stroked with a newspaper article. He tells us how godly he is, while hurling vitriol on others. Wilson has vilified the media, the University of Idaho, the UI Office of Human Rights and Diversity, public schools, liberals, homosexuals, feminists, secularists, atheists, and “Not in Our Town.” He ridicules everyone not embracing his views, including other religions. Yet Wilson whines “victimized” and “slandered” when someone responds negatively to his invective.

We’ve witnessed Wilson’s vicious insult attacks disguised as “forums” and “debates.” Those who refuse his verbal bludgeoning and garbage spewing are accused of “running away,” because Wilson without an audience is a carp without water.

And this bloated, self-aggrandizing, self-referencing blowhard has the gall to call “foul” when outed as a nasty piece of work? Wilson is so upset anyone has dared infer he is slimy and wicked that he is now whining to Idaho’s governor for relief. His defense of his own ignorant, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, un-Christian ranting has worn thin. The only one victimizing Wilson is Wilson himself. If he had any decency, he wouldn’t snivel about intolerance towards his behavior and views.

Debi Robinson-Smith
Moscow

Connection is in Wilson’s mind
No connection exists between the stand of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States against some of Doug Wilson’s heretical positions and his Credenda/Agenda article on the confederate battle flag, except in Doug’s mind. Relating the two as he has done recently in print is either a figment of his imagination or wishful thinking on his part. I too am against all self-righteous displays of the confederate flag. Furthermore, when I visited the offices of Doug’s school in Moscow several years ago, the battle flag and pictures of Confederate soldiers were prominently displayed.

Sincerely,

Joe Morecraft III
Minister, RPCUS
Atlanta, GA

Exercise your First Amendment rights
Dear editor,

Doug Wilson’s letter to Gov. Kempthorne was nothing more than a note from a 2-year-old crying to his teacher that someone was picking on him. The very fact that Doug Wilson took known historical documents and forced them into the molds of his and Christ Church’s ideas is repugnant to all of academia. Any individual who puts out a written work should be prepared to subject that work and their own ideas to public criticism. When that criticism has been delivered, a mature author would recognize the validity of that criticism and accept it with dignity.

Dr. William Ramsey of the History Department took what he knew and dissected Wilson’s argument that slavery was good. Dr. Ramsey exercised his First Amendment rights by bringing to light the massacre inflicted by Wilson on historical thought and documents regarding slavery. I applaud Dr. Ramsey and others in the History Department for standing up to the insults that were dealt to the historical timeline when it was argued that slavery was good.

As a student, I am free to form my own opinions from all lectures, books and documents presented at a university. That is the purpose of a university, to aid students in developing their own opinions and expressing them.

I am expressing my opinion. Slavery was bad. February 5–7, Doug Wilson and Christ Church will be a hosting a “History Conference.” I will exercise my First Amendment rights in respectful protest at this event. Join me and give your constitutional rights a workout.

Mari Robinson
Junior
history and secondary education

Professors deserve right to express opinions
Dear editor,

It’s really sad when you have to argue that slavery is wrong. Doug Wilson took credible historical documents and molested and perverted them until they were no longer the truth, claiming that slavery wasn’t all that bad. Wilson then had the audacity to belittle the outrage of credible historians into nothing more than soapbox ranting.

When Wilson put his pamphlet, Southern Slavery As It Was, out into the public, what was he expecting? Did he expect that no one would be outraged? Did he think that he was above professional criticism? When you put your opinion out into society publicly, you can expect that there will be dissenting opinions.

I respect Wilson’s right to express his opinion, but he needs to show respect as well. This criticism of Wilson is because he shows no respect for dissenting opinions. He expects our professional historians to sit by while he distorts credible historic documents. Wilson expects that since our historians work for a public university, they have no right to express their opinions. Our professors are showing us how to channel our opinions in a positive, constructive way, instead of a less professional slanderous venue. As college students, we are trained to question everything and discover the truth for ourselves.

Well, I question both Wilson and Dr. William Ramsey, and from what I have read Dr. Ramsey’s arguments withstand criticism while Wilson’s crumble beneath his scare tactics and false accusations. I fully support the actions of our professors. Wilson needs to learn to be an adult about these situations, instead of crying to the governor when he receives criticism.

I plan to protest his neo-confederate “history conference” and not because anyone from the university tells me I should protest, but because I don’t believe Wilson understands history.

Chanel Aiken
Sophomore
History

No place for theocracy here
Douglas Wilson whines that his critics are intolerant. In my case he is correct.

Wilson preaches that women lack wisdom and prudence and are unfit for leadership. Isn’t such an obviously false by observation, poisonous doctrine abusively and hatefully denigrating? Mightn’t this doctrine cause perhaps irreversible damage to many innocents of both sexes who are flimflammed into believing it?

Wilson argues the abolitionists who worked to free the slaves were the real sinners, not the slave owners. Wilson states that slavery was an affectionate, mutually satisfying institution. Besides being toxic fantasy, is this not covert, insidiously hypocritical racism?

Is Wilson’s insatiable need to control others and thus his frothingly concupiscent opposition to adults choosing whom to love and with whom to spend their lives a severe case of reaction formation?

Are the arrogantly dishonest denials by Wilson of his written statements consistent with his alleged Christian views against lying?

Are Wilson’s megalomaniacal views really unconscious, desperate cries for the services of a competent mental health professional?

Like his homologues in the Neo-Nazis and KKK, Wilson’s egomaniacal (“I’m always right; everyone else is wrong”), repugnant, reptilian views based on ignorance deserve this much tolerance: He has the right to hold and to argue for his views.

Tolerance ends there. Beliefs have behavioral consequences, sometimes terrible ones. Hence, all ideas are open to critical examination, especially those where human rights are at issue.

If you share some or all of these intolerances with Wilson’s assault on human rights, liberty, and dignity, then act. For your and your children’s sake prevent the spread of fanatical, theocratic, Talibanesque bigotry in your community.

Boycott the businesses that financially support Wilson’s hateful doctrines. Actively speak out and participate with those that dare to oppose He Who Must Be Obeyed.

Wayne A. Fox
Moscow

Hatred is born of fear
I was struck by the (perhaps) unintentional irony in the photo (Daily News, Feb. 7 & 8) of cult leader Doug Wilson in front of a podium saying: “Idaho is too Great for Hate.”

If Wilson had his way there would indeed be no hate except for: homosexuals, uppity women, scientists, teachers, atheists, abortion providers and their patients, members of other religions, public school supporters, contemporary artists and architects and musicians and poets and writers, red heads, Planned Parenthood supporters, socialists, Marxists, and so on.

Such wide-ranging hatred usually comes out of fear. It would be interesting to know what Wilson is afraid of. Being ignored?

Ross Coates
Moscow

Don’t give in to the rhetoric
Douglas Wilson’s goal is to make Moscow a miserable place for modern-day students and faculty to live and learn.

The truth is, Moscow does not have to give in to Wilson’s rhetoric. The only consequence of his heinous actions is that he will make the student’s voices louder and stronger against him.

The University of Idaho hires professors knowing what they have done academically in their educational past. Ramsey and Quinlan are published in renowned, scholarly journals whereas Wilson has to produce his booklets in his basement and then sell said booklets to schools he is affiliated with.

If Wilson did not want to have his work commented on, he shouldn’t have published it in the first place; a lot of people would not have been affected if Southern Slavery, As it Was had not been published. His work has been termed as scholastic fraud.

Wilson is a radical leader bent on bringing down toleration, secularism and, eventually, every free-thinker he comes across. It is our duty not to let this demon spread his evil. I agree with those who think he’s not only a bigot against gays, lesbians, secularism, and different races, he also is a bigot against religions.

Wilson and his kind are dangerous and against every person who does not conform.

Melissa Montgomery
Moscow

Letter writer went too far
At last there is an issue the entire Palouse region community can agree upon. A recent letter to the editor (Opinion, Feb. 7 & 8) by Wayne Fox described Christ Church pastor Douglas Wilson’s views as “reptilian.” This is obviously an uncalled-for, deliberate, outrageous, heretical, and vituperative libel.

This time Fox has gone too far. Let all members of the community join together firmly and loudly to protest this blatant blasphemy by the spiritually bereft Fox. All together: We demand that Fox issue an immediate contrite and heartfelt apology to all reptiles.

Rosemary Huskey
Moscow

Thank you.

Copyright Dealies

2008-05-11T18:33:00.000-07:00

As we continue to gather material for our next installment of the Kult Police State series, I came across this gem from Wilson’s Southern Slavery scandal that deserves your attention.

You’ll recall that we’ve considered this email, written by Dougzilla during the Slavery controversy, from one angle. Let me show you another angle to the email that highlights both his arrogance and hypocrisy. To refresh your memory, here’s the email that he posted to the Moscow Vision 20/20 electronic bulletin board:

From: “Douglas”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Proposed debate

Visionaries,

In my newspaper column a week or so ago, I concluded by inviting Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey to debate. Not hearing anything back from them, I emailed them privately last week to reiterate the offer. After making that second offer I have not heard back either.

I must now take an interesting (and perhaps courageous) step. At the top of their paper is the most interesting copyright notice I have ever seen. After the normal copyright dealies, it says, “Please do not cite, quote, summarize, or otherwise reproduce without permission of the authors.” Not being a professional historian myself, I am unfamiliar with this kind of restriction. I was somewhat surprised that they did not also include “or refer to the existence of” as one of the restrictions.

Here is the courageous step. I am now going to quote from their paper, and I did not get permission. On the second page, the writers say that it “is imperative, therefore, that real historical scrutiny be focused on this unusual performance.” I agree! Well, here is a golden opportunity for professional historians to focus some more real historical scrutiny on my little putt-putt scholarship.

This being the case, why the silence? Perhaps there is an explanation to be found in Ambrose Bierce’s incomparable Devil’s Dictionary.

Valor, n. A soldierly compound of vanity, duty and the gambler’s hope.

“Why have you halted?” roared the commander of a division at Chickamauga, who had ordered a charge; “move forward, sir, at once.”

“General,” said the commander of the delinquent brigade, “I am persuaded that any further display of valor by my troops will bring them into collision with the enemy.”

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

P.S. Chickamauga was a battle in the War of the Roses, although professional historians take a different view.

To set the context, Wilson had offered to debate the absurd thesis of his preposterous book Southern Slavery As It Was with two historians from the University of Idaho who published a scholarly rebuttal to his plagiarized effort. And I’m sure that Wilson believed his cutting insults and his arrogant chest-beating brought honor to the Son of God as he sought to defend the indefensible. But you can’t miss this line in the middle of Dougzilla’s huffing and puffing:

At the top of their paper is the most interesting copyright notice I have ever seen. After the normal copyright dealies, it says, “Please do not cite, quote, summarize, or otherwise reproduce without permission of the authors.” Not being a professional historian myself, I am unfamiliar with this kind of restriction.

I call these sentences to your attention because a local citizen named Tom Hansen (who hosts the Not on the Palouse website) wasted no time posting the mother of all replies to the Fearless Leader:

From: “Thomas Hansen”
To: “Vision2020”
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Proposed debate

That seems a bit odd that you are unfamiliar with such a copyright notice, Mr. Wilson. Especially since that same notice is posted in your pamphlet. The copyright notice in your pamphlet goes even further. I would quote your copyright notice here, but I would need your permission.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

And unlike Douglas Wilson, Tom Hansen wasn’t lying because here’s the fully documented proof of his assertion:

Did you catch that? Wilson claimed, “Not being a professional historian myself, I am unfamiliar with this kind of restriction,” even though he pasted one of those “copyright dealies” right smack dab in the front of the book that he edited. Of course the irony is that he and Wilkins copyrighted a book that they had plagiarized wholesale from two other men’s work.

But the point is not that Wilson really was familiar with those copyright dealies when he claimed he was not, and the point isn’t that he’s not a professional historian, because he’s not any kind of historian; he’s a popular storyteller who possesses no moral boundaries. The point is that Douglas Wilson is shameless beyond measure and he will stoop to any level to make sure the whole world knows it.

Thank you.

Neoslavery

2008-05-08T14:12:00.000-07:00

A friend sent me these links regarding a very disturbing story about neoslavery in America. Douglas A. Blackmon wrote a book titled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America from the Civil War to World War II that documents an era of horrible injustice in the South, here in the land of the free:

Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations — including U.S. Steel Corp. — looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of “free” black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.

You can hear the author interviewed on NPR and the book’s website has a blog as well. Spurgeon once wrote, “Every time I see a man kick a horse, I want to kick him.” How much more when you see men abuse power to oppress an entire race of men, stripping them of their freedom and their dignity, for no other reasons than greed and hate. Indeed, every time I see a man oppress another man, I want to go Billy Jack on him.

Don’t miss the Photo Gallery; it’ll make you sick. And I’ll bet that Wilson and Wilkins are just twisted enough to gloat that maybe the slaves had it better on the plantation.

Thank you.

Personality Cults

2008-05-07T18:59:00.000-07:00

The next installment in our Kult Police State series shall address the subject of “personality cults,” or “the cult of the individual,” which is a political term coined by Karl Marx to describe the philosophical antithesis of communism, though it is commonly used to describe various non-Christian religious sects, such as Christ Church, Moscow, because of the religious loyalty and devotion shown by the adherents to their charismatic leader (witness yesterday’s attack of the monkey boys).

In preparing for this post last weekend, I read a speech delivered by Nikita Khrushchev to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whereat he repudiated his Josef Stalin’s cult of personality. Of course, Josef Stalin was perhaps the most ruthless dictator of the twentieth century (flip a coin between him and Hitler).

If you’re a history buff, this speech offers a vivid peek behind the Iron Curtain of Stalin’s regime from a man who knew all the players as well as many of the victims. More importantly, Khrushchev demonstrates the immediate dangers of any personality cult and how Stalin, with his volatile, untrustworthy character, took his cult to the farthest extremes.

Everyone in Moscow will immediately spot the parallels between Stalin and the Fearless Leader. Outsiders may need more details. If that’s the case, just remind yourself that Moscow is the home of the notorious show trials.

So take a half hour to read it (it’s over 23,000 words). It will help you understand the menace posed by Personality Cults.

Thank you.

A Time to Speak

2008-05-06T08:14:00.000-07:00

Pastor Kevin Johnson has written a heartfelt post about his experience dealing with the undisciplined rogues of the CREC, which he titled “The Time for Silence Is Over”:

There have been times when I’ve been absolutely enraged by these things — but the one thing I come back to after all that emotion is the people who are under the care of men like this. Even if you don’t agree with anything I’ve written above — I ask you to pray for the people in the congregations of men who behave this way. They are the ones in need of real ministerial care and I pray our Lord will provide it.

This post is especially timely after last weekend, which is another story, but people really have no idea the damage that Wilson and his thugs cause in people’s lives because most folks don’t understand the magnitude of the problem. And I think one of the reasons for this is that Wilson has conditioned the Church to accept his reprehensible conduct. “Oh, that’s Doug.” And then they move on.

But if you give it a second look, you’ll discover that Wilson and his pet reprobates are not wolves in sheep’s clothing — no, they’re wolves in wolves’ fur. They don’t even try to hide it anymore, unless it’s a particularly grievous offense that won’t pass muster with everyday Christians. They just do their thing, however lawless it may be, and ridicule anyone who dares to challenge them.

Please read “The Time for Silence Is Over” because Pastor Johnson is correct.

Thank you.

Anonymity Excursus: The Kult Police State Part 2

2008-05-02T14:50:00.000-07:00

Today I want to continue our series considering Douglas Wilson’s denial that Christ Church, Moscow, is a totalitarian organization that uses its front as a Christian church to conceal its true nature. A few days ago we considered Christ Church’s secret police when we saw that unless it’s common for pastors to participate in telephone wire-tap sting operations to entrap members of their congregation, then it’s safe to say that Moscow has Orwellian tendencies. And unless Scripture obligates wives violate their marriage vows and their conscience in order to submit to the elders, then we have Jonestown situation developing. Today we want to consider propaganda.

PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATED THROUGH STATE-CONTROLLED MASS MEDIA
Most of the people for whom I write already know that Douglas Wilson is a master of spin. To be sure, he has more spin cycles than a Laundromat. And half the time he doesn’t bother to use detergent. He’s satisfied as long as he concocts something for his disciples to believe. So he’ll finesse a point world without end until he lands a story that sticks and then he’ll propagate it to the four corners of the earth, making sure everybody hears his version of events, which usually bears no resemblance to the truth. But spin is not quite the same as propaganda, though they certainly intersect at many points. Accordingly,

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. — Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion

Working from these two definitions, we want to consider how the Kult uses propaganda to indoctrinate and control its membership and how they use propaganda to shape public opinion in a manner not consistent with the truth. Let me start by noting that Wilson has four primary audiences whom he targets with propaganda at any given time:

Members of the Kult

Loyalists Outside the Kult

Potential Recruits for the Kult

Outsiders

And he has four primary Kult-controlled media outlets that he uses for propaganda, since he cannot control the media proper, though not for a lack of trying.[6] They are

“Grace & Peace” emails

Blog and Mablog

Credenda Agenda

Paid Advertising

1. Propaganda to Members of the Kult
Douglas Wilson sends a weekly email to the Kult membership that he titles “Grace & Peace,” which is usually a 200- to 300-word vignette and, depending on the circumstances, any particular “Grace & Peace” could be entirely benign, addressing ordinary issues that Christians face from day to day, or it could be total brainwashing propaganda designed to shape his disciples’ thought processes. For example, Wilson sent the following two emails as part of a “Grace & Peace” series during his Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004:

----- Original Message -----
From: Christ Church
To: christkirk@moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: Grace and Peace

GRACE & PEACE
“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:11)

Controversy, Part 2
One of the great temptations that comes with controversy is that we would like everything to be clear and tidy. But this is not how battles go. Battles are chaotic, and it takes wisdom, long experience, and discernment to detect any order in the midst of it. It takes even more of these characteristics to shape that order to your desired ends. This is where our faith in the sovereignty of God comes in He sees, knows, understands, and directs all the various details which appear to us to be chaotic.

So in the midst of apparent chaos, it is not our responsibility to usurp the “generalship” of God, but rather to serve as faithful foot soldiers. We do not have to fully understand the big picture; we have to understand what we were given to do, and we should do it with a cheerful and humble demeanor. When everything erupts around us, this does not necessarily mean we have done anything wrong at all. We should perhaps think about it the way a faithful soldier would, “Everyone is shooting at me because they see that what I am doing is a significant threat to their cause. Well, praise God, let’s hope so.”

Douglas Wilson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris LaMoreaux, Administrative Secretary
Christ Church - Anselm House
205 East 5th Street P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
christkirk@moscow.com
Voice: (208) 882-2034 Fax: (208) 892-8724
Credenda/Agenda: (208) 882-7963
www.christkirk.com

The first thing you have to notice is that this was the second installment in a series of emails. In other words, it belonged to “a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.” The second thing you have to notice is the series’ title: “Controversy.” And the third thing you have to notice is that the email assumes a state of controversy in the Kult while it completely ignores the reasons for the controversy.[7] In other words, he doesn’t say, “I co-wrote a wildly fantastic revision of Southern slavery that defended the Peculiar Institution as a biblical practice and since we live in an academic community the locals are understandably disturbed.” He doesn’t state these facts because “Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.” He needed to re-orient his disciples’ minds to contradict the almost-daily headlines and the countless letters to the editor that they’d been reading in the News.[8] Notice his three points:

Since God was in charge, no one else had to fully understand the big picture,[9] which meant that members of the Kult should not expect the Fearless Leader to account for his ungodly behavior.

Members of the Kult should be cheerful and humble through this controversy (despite the absence of cheer and humility in him; his tantrums on 20/20 were unbelievable).
The Kult posed a significant threat to the community.[10]

But his primary objective was to keep the Kult together in the midst of this scandal by leading them to believe they were in it together, according to God’s will, when it was really his scandal that he generated.[11]

He wrote this “Grace & Peace,” as part of the same series, a couple weeks later:

----- Original Message -----
From: Christ Church
To: christkirk@moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: Grace and Peace

GRACE & PEACE
“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:11)

Controversy, Part 4
In any public controversy in the church, there is a fine line that those who are not “in the know” must walk. On the one hand, a slavish acquiescence to whatever the elders or pastor might say is clearly a mentality more suited to a cult than to a Christian people. On the other hand, often controversies arise publicly in a setting where all the reasons for the controversy cannot be made public. If every person in the church must decide on the facts of the case before making up his mind, we soon have scores of courts and judges, and the results are a form of ecclesiastical anarchy.

This is why the elder qualifications set forth in Scripture are so important. The people of God do not have to know all the details their elders know, but they must know what kind of men they are (1 Pet. 5:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit. 1:5–9). This prevents the blind trust of the cult member, and it also prevents the chaos of individualism. And in addition, this explains why slander is such an important weapon in the arsenal of antagonists. Slander aims to unsettle the trust which makes this kind of decency and order within the church possible.

Douglas Wilson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris LaMoreaux, Administrative Secretary
Christ Church - Anselm House
205 East 5th Street P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
christkirk@moscow.com
Voice: (208) 882-2034 Fax: (208) 892-8724
Credenda/Agenda: (208) 882-7963
www.christkirk.com

As before, this propaganda communicated that he had no intention to account for his scandal: “often controversies arise publicly in a setting where all the reasons for the controversy cannot be made public.” He would not make public the reasons for the controversy because he was the reason for the controversy — unless you can think of another interpretation. But then he pointed to the twelve(?) hand-picked hirelings whom he appointed to the office of elder as proof that, even though they would not reveal anything to the membership, the members could still trust their leadership:

This is why the elder qualifications set forth in Scripture are so important. The people of God do not have to know all the details their elders know, but they must know what kind of men they are (1 Pet. 5:1–4; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit. 1:5–9).[12] This prevents the blind trust of the cult member, and it also prevents the chaos of individualism.

Strangely, the point of this email was to encourage Kult members to put their blind trust in the misdemeanants running the show — you know, the same men who gave you April Fools and who approved the Fearless Leader’s eavesdropping — men of sound moral fiber. And remember, no matter what anyone else says, you are not in a cult.

Finally, “Grace & Peace” functions as an electronic outlet for Wilson to fill the gossip mill about members in good standing whenever he prepares for their public execution. For example, this family never saw it coming and they never had a prayer. Wilson sent the email at the same time that he began spreading horrible rumors about how the family betrayed him (he appreciates the tag-team approach to gossip) and if you didn’t know who he was talking about when you received the email, it was just a matter of time before his tasty trifle came your way. He needed to prep everyone for the upcoming hate ritual whereby Kult members could publicly detest this family by scowling at them and deriding them on the Lord’s Day.[13] You should also notice that he included this email as part 12 of his “Controversy” series. Controversy indeed.

2. Propaganda to Loyalists Outside the Kult
Blog and Mablog is the familiar medium that Wilson uses to indoctrinate his disciples, and the ongoing Federal Vision controversy demonstrates this point well. For example, after the PCA adopted “Report of the Ad Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology” Wilson used Blog and Mablog to brainwash his disciples into thinking that the PCA “stacked the committee.” Of course, this is an ad hominem argument, and to the extent that he heaped contempt on the PCA and its committee it was an abusive ad hominem argument, but these dishonest tactics didn’t stop the Fearless Leader from relentlessly pounding the PCA. In fact, he even had a contest to see who from among his loyalists could think of the most creative analogy for how much the PCA “stacked” its committee, calling it “As Stacked As . . .”[14] And you can determine Wilson’s effectiveness on this one point alone by observing the vast number of loyalists who regularly repeat his mantra — “It was a stacked committee!” — without giving it a second thought. And I could cite one example after another (make that one Wilson-generated controversy after another) where he has used his blog to misinform and indoctrinate his disciples.

3. Propaganda for Potential Recruits
Credenda Agenda once served as the Kult’s principal medium for propaganda but the emergence of instant publishing on the web, as seen in Blog and Mablog, has pushed Credenda into the back seat. Nevertheless, Credenda is still an effective tool for propaganda as we saw when Wilson used it to instruct wives to roll on their husbands. Moreover, anyone following the Federal Vision controversy knows that Wilson has used his self-published periodical to peddle heresy. In fact, as I write Pastor Lane of Green Baggins is critiquing an issue of Credenda Agenda dedicated to the Federal Vision.

But I believe Credenda’s primary strength as propaganda is the family-friendly face it puts on the Kult, and by “family friendly” I mean all the columns on husbandry, femininity, marriage, childrearing, etc., where the Wilsons present themselves as authorities on these subjects and they present Kult life as the zenith of Christian culture. In this respect Credenda Agenda constitutes pure unadulterated propaganda. It’s all for show. They want to project an Aryan-like image of Christian perfection in Moscow where their paint-by-numbers formula for federal headship will solve all your Christian problems. But it’s a good thing that Credenda doesn’t represent itself as a news journal because then they might have to report the truth. Drug rings, rampant drunkenness, casinos, April Fools,[15] deadbeat dads, serial pedophiles, convicted child molesters — all these documented historical facts, and more, are sure signs that Christ Church culture is rotten to the core — hence the need to baptize their message with family-friendly propaganda. Appearance is better than substance if you want others to believe that your community fosters healthy family relationships, and they absolutely need outsiders to believe their propaganda for recruiting purposes. Douglas Wilson has completely fried the local population and he has no hope of rehabilitating his reputation, which is to say that he cannot sustain his base by evangelizing Moscow because everyone knows he’s a con artist: he has no credibility. Consequently he has to keep his home base supplied by recruiting loyalists to join the new reformation. And if you read Credenda, they give you the distinct impression that they nurture those things essential for the family. Don’t believe it. It’s propaganda designed to lure the unsuspecting.

4. Propaganda for Outsiders
I really don’t think it’s possible to overstate the magnitude of the slavery scandal. Indeed, I’m on record for saying that Wilson could have averted the whole thing by simply admitting he erred in his thesis and exaggerated his conclusions, and that in hindsight he should not have written the book. Problem solved. There is no story. There is no headline. But things didn’t go that way and consequently Christ Church, Moscow, put itself in the unbelievable position of buying quarter-page ads in all the local newspapers (the Daily News, the Lewiston Trib, the UI’s Argonaut, and WSU’s Daily Evergreen), which they ran daily for about a full month.[16] They wrote two different ads and published them in two-week increments. You can read digitized versions here, or since this is a fully documented anonymous attack blog you may view them below. Here’s the first ad:

There’s nothing subtle here, starting with the politically oriented title that reeks of propaganda to suggest that these men, who censored others,[17] lived in a Soviet-like community: “It’s About Silencing Dissent.” I am not aware that anyone on the Palouse wanted to silence Christ Church and I am not aware that Southern Slavery As It Was represented itself as dissent. It revised American history to put a happy face on the slaves and noble character on their owners. Yes, massa. But since I’m way over my word limit, let me highlight one sentence in this ad for your consideration:

“Christ Church has a deep hatred of war, and our comments against the butchery of 600,000 persons in the Civil War have been opportunistically twisted into a defense of the hell of slavery.”

Sure. Here you see the Kult leadership attempting to capitalize on the ignorance of anyone who never read the book, because if you’d actually read it you would know that this representation bears no resemblance to reality. It’s a complete lie — just like the book. Southern Slavery As It Was was absolutely a defense of the slave-holding South. Even worse, it represented itself as a biblical defense of the slave-holding South.[18]

But the thing I don’t understand is why the Kult leaders refused to admit the obvious. If they had to run an ad, which they didn’t, then why wouldn’t they admit the very point that the Fearless Leader admitted to the Daily News when he started this controversy? He said, “I resolved a long time ago that I would not be ashamed of anything in the Bible.” I don’t recall ever reading about the Civil War in the Bible, but I know God’s Word addresses “the hell of slavery,” which their “comments” described thus:

Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.

Where’s the hell of slavery in that sound bite? Who twisted what words? Why did the Kult leaders refuse to admit the truth? Apparently they thought the citizens of the Palouse were as gullible as the members of the Kult. They are not. The propaganda didn’t sell. Therefore Christ Church ran the following ad for two weeks in all the local papers:

If you got past the condescending sarcasm,[19] please notice how this ad subtly changed the subject of the controversy from slavery to the gospel and then called on the community to repent. If you wonder why I call Wilson evil, here is one more example. It is morally perverted to unashamedly write a defense of Southern slavery and call it biblical. It is slander to purchase an ad accusing an entire community of twisting your words, even though you had just unashamedly owned them as your words. But it is evil to purchase an ad that drags the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ into the center of your scandal, so that you could call on believers and unbelievers alike to repent simply because they caught you unashamedly perverting God’s holy word.

As I said, Wilson cannot rehabilitate his reputation on the Palouse. He threw it all away on a dirty little book and then bought a month’s worth of ads to insure everyone got the point. He scorched the earth to obtain his pound of flesh and now the City of Moscow knows him for his true self. As he said, “Sin and guilt make people do weird things.” I note this as a taunt.

Every one of the examples I cited demonstrates a systematic effort on the part of the Kult “to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent” of Christ Church, Moscow, and none of the examples I cited have anything to do with the Christian gospel. As a friend says, “It’s all about Doug.” I could cite dozens of other examples where the Kult resorted to the manipulative devices of deceitful propaganda but these few will have to do. I would apologize for the length of this post but that’s the cost of fully documenting my posts.

Thank you.

[6] A reporter from the Moscow–Pullman Daily News told me that when the slavery story erupted, Wilson demanded a meeting with Nathan Alford, owner and publisher for the News, to demand a retraction of the story. According to the reporter, Wilson showed up with 14 officers from the church, but Alford (who is a real marshmallow) didn’t budge. So Wilson threw a fit on Vision 20/20, complaining about the Daily News. He did the same thing when two professional historians from the University of Idaho published a factual rebuttal to Southern Slavery As It Was; he went so far as to write a letter to the governor of the State of Idaho asking him to chill the UI. We saw a similar response from Wilson after WORLD Magazine reported Wilson’s and Wilkins’ plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was. True to form, Wilson demanded a retraction and an apology. He even said that they missed the real story — something about a culture war in Moscow (see “Accuracy and Objectivity” and “What in the World?”). He demanded an apology from the Idaho Statesman after they compared Christ Church to “Neo-Nazis” (see “Libel Simpliciter”; I wrote a letter to the editor demanding that they apologize to the Third Reich, but they did not print it). His aversion to bad press is evident, especially when it’s grounded in truth.

[7] The timing of this email is important to note. Wilson dispatched it exactly four days before the Moscow–Pullman Daily News ran this front-page headline, for which the News interviewed him. He saw bad news on the horizon.

[8] It didn’t take long for Wilson to organize a silent boycott of the Daily News — silent, in the sense that he privately encouraged members of the Kult to cancel their subscriptions to the News. Economic sanctions: If you can’t chill ’em, boycott ’em.

[9] Wilson makes a similar argument in favor of chaos during controversy here. He creates and exploits confusion for his own ends (cf. 1 Cor. 14:33).

[10] Notice that Wilson arrived at his third point by affirming the consequent: “Everyone is shooting at me because they see that what I am doing is a significant threat to their cause.” More importantly, no one shot at anyone. Douglas Wilson completely scandalized the Palouse with his contemptible monograph and his equally contemptible behavior.

[11] We see another example of him indoctrinating his disciples with a so-called “parable” that he delivered to the Kult three months after the so-called “history” conference and right as two local citizens challenged (and won) the Kult’s property-tax exemption:

The Real Reasons They Left
Topic: Parable

It was the early evening of the day in which Gideon had told his army that all who were faint of heart could return to their homes. A group of soldiers were gathered around their campfire, and they were explaining to one another why they had all decided to return to their homes in just an hour or so.

It was the eve of battle, and so their various explanations rang a little hollow. But they all protested Gideon’s mischaracterization of their motives, saying that to describe 22,000 men as “fearful and afraid” was surely a rash generalization.

One man said that he had decided to go home after he had seen the swagger in the three hundred who were the remaining force that had inexplicably been chosen by Gideon — by methods that were, to say the least, unorthodox and bizarre. “There is not enough humility there,” he said. “We need to have more tears and introspection as we deal with the enemies of God. Those men seemed positively eager to fight.”

“I agree completely,” another man said. “That is why I have been feeding information to the Daily Midianite [the Daily News]. If there is corruption and sin in our ranks, shouldn’t we be willing to have the facts made public? And I know Gideon is a tax protester.”

“Exactly,” said a third man. “I never liked the colors of this uniform either. On top of that, I live next door to one of the the [sic] so-called elite 300, and he has a dog that he can’t keep out of my yard. These are grave concerns.”

But not only was it the eve of battle, but it was the eve of an Old Testament Agincourt, a victory against all odds. And tens of thousands of covenant men were not there because their cowardice robbed them of all sense of proportion.
Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/9/2004 7:54:23 PM

He has to keep the rank and file together and in this instance he compared his never-ending wars to Gideon’s victory over Midian. Unfortunately for the Fearless Leader, the comparison ended in his imagination. Christ Church surrendered to the community by replacing its “history” conference with the Trinity Fest and the Latah County Commissioners revoked their property-tax exemption. He would have been more accurate if he compared his ongoing battle to Ai, as long as he cast himself as Achan.

[12] This assertion begs the question; Wilson assumes what he has not established. His elders were no better fit for office than him — that’s why he picked them.

[13] Everyone reading this post should stop for a for a moment to consider how this works (though I intend to document a Kult execution in detail). The targeted family knew immediately what the email meant, if no else did yet. I know this because the father forwarded the email to me with a follow-up phone call. Wilson deliberately used the most inflammatory language possible from the Bible to describe the situation, but he cared not a whit about the Scriptures or the family — he wanted to incite terror in that household by invoking the most severe imagery possible to describe his desire for the earth swallow these souls alive. And if you’re curious about the particular sin that incurred such wrath from the Fearless Leader, you won’t believe it: Wilson discovered that the wife called him “papa bear” in a private email exchange that she had with a Kult enemy. As Wilson’s sister-in-law says, “Nobody thinks Doug is capable of doing it, until he does it to them.” She speaks from experience.

[14] More evidence of Wilson’s resolve to corrupt those within his sphere of influence.

[15] Credenda’s clever interpretation of their April Fools’ Day joke that went awry is another good example propaganda. Everyone has a fun time in Moscow, just don’t ask about the illegal activity.

[16] Since most of my readers serve in the ministry, let me run a question by you: Have you ever seen a church purchase two political ads to defend itself against the charge of racism and historical revisionism because they published a book that revised American history in order to defend race-based slavery? This is just one reason why we call it “the Kult.”

[17] Let me remind you that these are the same goons who expect Kult wives to rat out their husbands if they dissent; they require groupthink on the session; they imposed the “Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty” on a godly family who caught Wilson in sin; and Wilson went so far as to write a letter to the governor of the State of Idaho asking him to silence the University of Idaho’s dissent. We shall address their prohibition of free speech later in this series, but it’s important to note their brazen hypocrisy here. These dissemblers leave the false impression that they stand opposed to those who would silence dissent when they are the physical embodiment of political and spiritual oppression.

[18] Here is how Canon Press describes the book:

Book Description
How is it that a pervasively Christian culture could have supported slavery? While opposing the South’s abuses and racism, this essay seeks to correct some of the gross slanders of that culture. It explains Scripture’s defense of a form of slavery against evangelicals who are embarrassed by it. (amazon.com)

I didn’t catch any references to the butchery of 600,000 persons in the Civil War. In fact, if you take twenty minutes to read the book, you’ll see that the authors never made any comments relative to this claim. In other words, not only is this propaganda in the most politically pejorative sense of the word, it’s a big fat lie.

[19] Please note that while the shepherds of Christ Church warned the community to “Guard Your Children from the Humorless,” no one was guarding the children of Christ Church from Steven Sitler. He’d been in town for four months by the time they started their PR blitz, and in the end he had his way with God’s lambs for 18 months while the Fearless Leader instigated one controversy after another. Perhaps he should “Triumph Over Pettiness,” or else be born again.

Riddle me this

2008-05-01T15:16:00.000-07:00

I’m writing the next post in our anonymity series and came across this psychological profile written by the Office of Strategic Services:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. (Wikipedia)

Thank you.

Anonymity Excursus: The Kult Police State Part 1

2008-04-29T16:19:00.001-07:00

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

Douglas Wilson writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nancy Wilson writes:

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

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

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

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

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

BIG DOUGER IS WATCHING YOU.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Context

2008-04-26T19:12:00.000-07:00

We’ve had some pretty clever graphics on this site but we don’t want to be too clever for our own good. I had an inquiry this morning about our favorite image of Wilson; here’s the exchange:

Anonymous said . . .

Not that it may matter to some people, but do you know when Wilson had this picture taken of himself? He looks like a thug. Amazing that he would want to present himself in this context, especially since he looks so pale? I’ve never known a pastor who would enjoy making himself look so cheap. Do you know what gives?

Mark T. said . . .

We pulled it off Blog and Mablog when he had his debate with Christopher Hitchens on CT. I remember going to Hitchens’ site (or one of the sites he writes for) and seeing a portrait of him dressed in a drab gray jacket smoking a cig. So Wilson took the time to have himself photographed in a similar pose as Hitchens, presumably to mock him as part of the debate, and since Hitchens argued for atheism I am sure that Wilson’s mockery of him adorned the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

On another note, my favorite book by Hitchens is No One Left To Lie To. He wrote it about the Clinton administration but someone could write a book about the Fearless Leader with the same title.

Anonymous said . . .

And here I always thought that shot was only, but adroitly, photoshopped! This changes everything. You really should give more context!

Mark T. said . . .

Photoshop cannot unveil the abundance of a man’s heart; he has to pose for that!

A picture’s worth a thousand words and we’ve got thousands of miles out of this one (and we intend to get thousands more). But since this is a fully documented anonymous attack blog, I believe it’s important to document the origin of this telling photograph and place it in its proper context.

Thank you.

Anonymity Excursus: Context of A Christ Church Wife’s Email

2008-04-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

I firmly believe in the importance — indeed the responsibility — to keep things in context. Whether it’s an historical event or a four-sentence paragraph — it behooves us to keep it in context.

With this in mind, here is the fully documented historical context of A Christ Church Wife’s email:

After
A Christ Church Wife sent her email to Vision 2020 about thirteen months after Wilson sent this email to the Kult, essentially notifying the membership that he found “the mole” — a traitor in the Kult (interestingly, I recall seeing an email from the Fearless Leader to this family where he noted that they needed “pastoral encouragement” or something to that effect; a few months later he held a public execution); one year after Credenda Agenda hosted its so-called “history” conference that completely scandalized the Palouse; eight months after the Latah County Commissioners revoked the Kult’s and NSA’s property-tax exemptions; three months after the Fearless Leader began sowing discord among the brethren at Church of the King–Santa Cruz (notice the words “two years”); five weeks after the Fearless Leader drove a family out of the church because they refused to sign the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty; two weeks after three former members of the Kult filed a zoning complaint against New Saint Andrews College, which the Moscow City Council sustained (Wilson positively vilified the complainants in the press and on the Internet).

Before
A Christ Church Wife posted her email to Vision 20/20 one month before the day that Wilson discovered that a serial pedophile had raped several lambs from his flock for the past 18 months; five weeks before he wrote “Three Stumbling Blocks” where he declared the Church was on the verge of a new reformation; roughly 10 weeks before the Fearless Leader strutted uphill to threaten the Latah County Commissioners that they better not revoke any more property-tax exemptions from the so-called ministries where he sat on the board; three months before WORLD Magazine reported the story that Douglas Wilson and Steven ~~“Machen”~~ Wilkins plagiarized enough body text in Southern Slavery As It Was to cover the Mississippi Delta; four months before “A Labor of Love” received broad circulation on the Palouse; one year before Patrick Poole Kut His Losses on the Kirk Kult; and seventeen months before the Fearless Leader took precious time from his strenuous blogging schedule to stroll downtown and file a frivolous police complaint that named five of his neighbors as possible suspects in a federal offense.

I’m sure that if I gave it more thought I could document other highly recognizable dates in Kult lore; but perhaps it’s best to think of A Christ Church Wife’s brilliant emails as just another day in the busy life of a petty self-absorbed tyrant.

Thank you.