Pastor Ghoul: Brazen Indeed

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

R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ

I’ve been working on a rather large post for almost a week now and as it continued to grow, it occurred to me that my fully documented anonymous attack blog has not addressed the RPCGA’s defrocking of RC Sproul Jr and the St. Peter Four, which is important because I reference it in the post I’m drafting. I can’t imagine that anyone in the Reformed world hasn’t heard about this scandal, but I can imagine that not everyone has benefited from Patrick Poole’s keen analysis or from examining the primary documents.

So I asked Patrick for permission to republish this essay that he originally published on Existential Space but deleted after he Kut His Losses on the Kirk Kult. (Please note that Patrick Poole feels safer writing exposés of Islamic terrorists than he does analyzing the Fearless Leader’s brazen hypocrisy; if you do the math this means that in Patrick’s estimation, Wilson’s thugs are much more sinister than the jihadists living in his hometown. I’m sure this is because Wilson loves God so much.) Nevertheless, Patrick may have deleted his blog post, but not before I saved it. After all, I am an information hog.

Anyway, Patrick gave me permission to republish this and I urge you to read it keeping one thing in the back of your head: Douglas Wilson said, “I have known Mr. Poole to act with integrity in the past.”

Sunday, February 05, 2006
R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ

Warning: If you’re not interested in presbyterian polity or keeping up with evangelical church news, come back later.

Preface: There are MANY who are saying that I don’t have the right to publish this article. Some are already writing thinly veiled screeds directing divine judgment at anyone having the audacity to make reasoned judgments from the well-established facts at issue here. “Touching the anointed of the Lord” kind of stuff. Even the Moscow Mullah, the Pasha of the Palouse, Doug Wilson himself publicly commented AFTER the RPCGA’s recent action to shout down any discussion about his friend R.C.’s defrocking. (Gee, Douggie, why can you publicly comment and none of us are allowed to do the same?) Some have also said that ecclesiastical charges should be issued against anyone making the following statements (a position rife with irony, as you will see as you continue to read). At least one individual was bragging earlier this week about having another blog closed down in retaliation for publishing the truth about this ongoing matter (which, thankfully, has reappeared). That’s the poisonous atmosphere that has been intentionally created in the wake of this situation. However, the stakes in this matter are not limited to discussing minuscule points of dogma or isolated to a Reformed micro-denomination. At this point, much is already a matter of public record, with all sides having their say. Thus far, at least to my knowledge, none of those self-appointed Reformed “superstars” who are aware of this situation have been willing to say anything publicly about it, presumably hedging their bets on how this whole affair plays out. Someone has to say, “We must stop this madness, or else it will kill us all.” It is a shame to the Church that it has to be left to someone as insignificant and unqualified in all senses as me to say it, but there it is.

As some observers are aware, on January 26th the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA) defrocked R.C. Sproul, Jr. and the entire session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church for a laundry list of violations not in dispute by either the presbytery or the defrocked men. Additional disputed charges are to be brought up for trial by the presbytery.

As you can read in the Moderator’s Declaratory Judgment (approved unanimously by the Westminster Presbytery), chief among the reasons for this action are abusive and unauthorized actions taken against members of the congregation, including refusing to allow the family to leave the church over doctrinal disputes, suspending them from the sacraments without trial, and ordering the entire congregation to “shun” the entire family (though only the husband and father was named in the session’s censure). R.C. and the session members all agreed that these actions took place and offered their “apologies” (which fell along the lines of “I’m so sorry your actions made be beat you. . .”). Additionally, several current and former church members gave written evidence to the same effect, including an apology letter sent to the targeted family from Rick Saenz, R.C.’s longtime and former personal assistant, admitting to not speaking out against the outrageous actions at the time they were occurring. St. Peter member (now former) Peter Kershaw should be applauded as well for being the first to denounce the treatment of the Austin family. You can read the entire documentary and evidentiary trail here.

These former church leaders have also admitted to illegally using the tax EID of another denomination as cover for the church and the Highlands Study Center, a violation of state and federal laws. Evidence has been given that this was deliberate and done at the direct instruction of R.C. himself. In light of this, the doctrinal differences between these former church leaders and the RPCGA noted in the Declaratory Judgment seem slight in comparison.

Again, this is all thus far undisputed and a matter of public record, with the written testimony of multiple witnesses and the confessions of the defrocked men themselves as witnesses against their abusive and illegal conduct.

All of the proceeding is not the cause of scandal to the body of Christ. This is biblical church discipline in process, and nothing unusual in that regard. If these men had shown repentance, it wouldn’t be right for me or anyone outside. What is scandalous is the behavior of these men subsequent to their defrocking. At this moment, there is a note posted on the website of St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highlands Study Center that reads (UPDATE — the following quote has been removed from their website):

As many of you have read, Dr. Sproul Jr., along with the entire session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, has heard from the moderator of the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly, that they have been deposed from their offices as elders in the church. This action was taken without a trial, indeed without even a conversation. We disagree with the action taken, and are considering our options as to how to respond. What we will not do is take shots against our accusers over the internet, and would encourage you not to do so, either. Please be patient, and please pray for the peace and purity of the church.

Now this is patently Clintonesque. They say that they won’t “take shots against our accusers over the internet.” Where is this posted? That’s right: on the Internet. And what do they say? “We’ve been wronged by these ecclesiastical fascists who didn’t even give us a trial!” Aren’t we all glad that they are refusing to say anything in their defense, especially over the Internet?

Now for the truth:

At this time, these men have been defrocked on the basis of their own testimony of their actions, confirmed by multiple witnesses. When a man pleads guilty, there is no trial. For those accusations that are disputed, and thus, still pending, a trial is being arranged by the presbytery.

They would have you believe that they are being railroaded by an out-of-control moderator (as evidenced by the attack on Westminster Presbytery Moderator Ken Talbot this week on WorldMagBlog [posts #37 and #38] by one of R.C.’s friends, David Zuniga), but in fact this action was approved in accordance with the RPCGA’s Book of Church Order, which as a member of their presbytery these men have submitted to. The Declaratory Judgment cites the relevant BCO language that allows for summary judgment when the facts are not in dispute.

It is also important to note that the entire Westminster Presbytery approved this action, and approved it unanimously. This is not the decision of a lone moderator.

The claim that this action was taken “without even a conversation” is entirely false. Ken Talbot examined this matter for almost two months, and the Declaratory Judgment even cites conversations between R.C. and the presbytery on this matter.

Another fact is that the Declaratory Judgment cites a December 15th email from R.C. to Ken Talbot asking for swift resolution of this matter:

It appears that at least three of our four elders cannot stay in the denomination. . . The particular hardship is this. We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads. Could you either, having let us go, hear the complaints against us, and issue a ruling, or barring that, could you forward all those complaints to where we end up? We have had much to repent of these past few weeks. We have done so. We are sorry in turn that our failures have caused trouble for you and the presbytery. (page 10)

The moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for.

The quote taken from R.C.’s email is quite telling. By this time, the investigation was in full swing, and it was only at this point that the “St. Peter Four” decided that they couldn’t stick around the RPCGA on the basis of their “convictions” of practicing paedo-communion — a practice strictly banned by the RPCGA since 1997. But when an investigation is launched on matters much more serious than their views on the Lord’s Supper, these cowards suddenly develop “convictions”? Remember that these men took vows before God and their fellow elders in presbytery to be in submission to the system and the judgments of the RPCGA. But using the canard of “convictions,” R.C. has asked that they either be tried only after they are allowed to leave the denomination, making any judgment by the RPCGA meaningless (because they will no longer have any jurisdiction), or allow some other as-yet unspecified denomination to examine the evidence (meaning that they might have to Catch R.c. Evacuating Christianity). But one thing is clear — they don’t want the RPCGA, the only authorized authority, doing the trial. How’s that for accountability? Maybe Doug Wilson will blog on that topic this week.

He thinks that having taken oaths and vows before God and men that he can leave the denomination without so much as a “by your leave”? Aren’t these the same Federal Vision “men without chests” who endlessly proclaim “the covenant, the covenant, the covenant of the Lord are these” over every minute detail of theology and beat anyone over the head who doesn’t agree with their interpretation of it? Covenants and vows apparently now mean nothing to R.C. and his Gang. This is pathetic in and of itself, but it gets worse.

Does anyone else but me see the sickening irony that R.C. is demanding for himself what he was ugly reluctant to give to others? The Austin family, who was the subject of malicious persecution by the ordained leaders of St. Peter, were refused when they requested to leave the church for their disagreements over paedo-communion and other doctrinal issues. What did R.C. and the Gang use as justification for their refusal to let the Austin family leave? Their membership vows. Another family states (cited in the Declaratory Judgment, p. 3):

Because of this we became more determined than ever to leave the church. R.C. and Laurence became just as determined that they were not going to let us go. They told us we had taken a vow to the Elders to stay in the church, and we could not leave unless they released us. They told us that we would never be able to join another reformed church if we were not in good standing with St. Peter and we would need their release for that to happen. (emphasis added)

From the documentary evidence available thus far, we can see that this refusal to let families leave the church was part of an abusive pattern. Furthermore, R.C. and the Gang made all members take vows beyond what was allowed by their denomination (point 5, pg. 7 of the Declaratory Judgment).

But that’s still not fully viewing how scandalous this affair truly is. One of the things at issue in the Austin’s de facto excommunication was that it was done without any trial whatsoever. At least Westminster Presbytery is willing to let these men go to trial for the matters that are in dispute, they having admitted to the substance of the charges laid out in the presbytery’s Declaratory Judgment. That notwithstanding, R.C. and the Gang are still complaining that they were not given a trial before they were defrocked. But when the shoe was on the other foot, they felt completely justified in acting without due process against the Austin family and others in violation of denominational rules.

At this point, if you still feel any pity for these reprobates, remember that the RPCGA is acting in accordance with their Book of Church Order, which the former leaders of St. Peter agreed to live by when they entered the RPCGA. No one put a gun to their head to make them join this denomination, and their rules were not treated as some kind of Masonic secret; their BCO is published on their website. Those who live by presbyterian polity can die by presbyterian polity.

As of this date, the previous statement that the church was part of the RPCGA has now been removed from the church’s website, making clear that these men are on the run. And they are looking for a safe haven. Time will tell where they might land, but at least one commentator, Tim Bayly, has provided this week a “hypothetical scenario” in which R.C. and the Gang could justifiably (sic) discuss moving their credentials to the CREC, where Douggie Wilson and his gang of drug dealers and illegal casino operators reside.

The scandal still keeps coming. R.C. has said that he is going to devote his time to the Highlands Study Center, which has historically been a ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church (even sharing the illegally obtained tax EID number). However, R.C. incorporated Highlands with the state of Virginia on January 10th (in the midst of the presbytery investigation), effectively stealing the ministry from the Church that he is not even a member of (ordained elders are members of the presbytery, not of the church they minister to). Whereas the St. Peter/Highlands website used to read that Highlands was “an integrated ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church,” that is no longer the case. It has been pilfered by R.C. and the Gang.

Make no mistake: these men are spiritual outlaws. No matter how much they want to hide behind their recently acquired “convictions” about the perils of presbyterian polity, they are autonomous religious renegades, and ought to be considered as such. Any ministry that planned to feature R.C. or any of his Gang as speakers at their events should withdraw the initiation immediately, and anyone previously invited to speak at future Highlands Study Center conferences should now decline to speak. Is this what I expect will happen? Not likely. These squibs are going to look for safe harbor, and my bet is that they’ll get it. Some wannabe Reformed micro-denomination would be glad to add R.C.’s name to their roster, regardless of the stench he drags behind him. Certainly there can be restoration with demonstrated repentance, and Lord willing, that will eventually occur. These men could even be restored to ministry at some future date. But as Westminster Presbytery has made clear, these men are currently unqualified and unfit to shepherd any flock:

The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1 Timothy 3:1–7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified. They have no interest to govern themselves appropriately within this presbyterian system of government that they vowed to submit and conform to its rules and regulations with conduct becoming ministers of Jesus Christ. (Declaratory Judgment, p. 11)

No one should be under any illusions. R.C. and his Gang of Thugs will try to paint this as nothing more than a difference over doctrine. They are “suffering servants” for the cause of paedo-communion (what a pathetic hill to die on!). But this is one of the clearest cases of spiritual abuse and reckless leadership the evangelical world has seen in a while (excepting Certain Reformed Evangelical Cults in Idaho). These men are in fact unqualified and unfit for office (and at this point, membership) in any church, and should be regarded and treated as such. The Westminster Presbytery should be applauded for the lawful defrocking of these petty tyrants. Their decisive removal from office in the face of overwhelming evidence is presbyterian polity at its best. Other Reformed denominations have had similar cases where they have refused to act. And the presbytery is lucky to have a man like Ken Talbot (who is both a theologian/churchman and an attorney) to oversee this matter. In light of the present conduct of R.C. and the Gang, hopefully further sanctions will be forthcoming. R.C. and the Gang are a direct threat to the purity of the body of Christ. Their mockery of the Reformed ecclesiology that they have publicly preached, but perverted in order to lord over others, will hopefully be put to an end. May this scandal be disassociated with the name of Christ.

POSTED BY PATRICK POOLE AT 11:01 AM

As I said, Patrick is an excellent analyst. Here are three other essays that he gave me permission to republish in the past; they are outstanding:

• “The Mendacious Mullah of Moscow”
• “Wilsonistas Gone Wild! ! ! !”
• “Kutting My Losses on the Kirk Kult”

Thank you

Think Al Capone Part 3

I want to revisit Douglas Wilson’s ex parte meeting with two Latah County commissioners in April 2005, when he served notice that revoking any more tax exemptions from his empire would be “a very expensive mistake.” As a reminder, here are excerpts from his statement:

If that is the case and if there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons of their own, my concern, which I wanted to express to you all, face to face, is that the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores. That sort of thing, it appears to me, would be a flagrant example of applying the law selectively. So in other words the “exclusive use,” the particular interpretation of “exclusive use” that you all decided on in the last go round, is now in appeal. That understanding of “exclusive use” must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board. . . . But I think we should all agree that the law should not just be applied to those who are the brunt of the animosity of a handful of people in town who want to run ’em out of town and who want to use the zoning requirements, the Latah County commissioners, or the Board of Adjustors, the Idaho State Attorney General, there was a complaint filed against me there on another thing. I don’t think that that should be — I think that should be recognized and I wanted to appear before you face to face and tell you face to face that that is my fundamental concern. I think it opens Latah County up to a great deal of exposure if the law is applied selectively in that way and I simply wanted to tell you that. . . . I guess the thing I wanted to say is that monsters don’t shrink when you feed them. And I believe it is your responsibility to not just look at the letter of the law, what’s going on in the law but also to look at the town and see what’s happening in town. The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that. . . . But the fact remains that there is a de facto situation on the ground where a year later the tax exemptions that have been removed have been from our two entities; the next two that are threatened are two entities that I sit on the board of and I just wouldn’t want Latah County to make a very expensive mistake. And that’s why I wanted to appear.

First, notice how Wilson set the stage for his monologue by fabricating the existence of enemies in town who had a “vendetta” not against him but against “us,” i.e. the Christ Church Cult, and notice the language he used to describe this so-called vendetta:

. . . there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons . . . settling personal scores . . . . monsters don’t shrink when you feed them . . . . The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that.

While this “enemies are out to get me” scenario is a complete fabrication of the Fearless Leader’s imagination, it nevertheless constitutes the warp and woof his worldview. The man cannot exist without enemies, real or imagined, and these enemies — these “monsters” — fuel his constantly growing paranoia. Of course, the truth is that no one ever wanted to run the Kult out of town; two citizens challenged the property-tax exemption of two entities in the kingdom of Doug. But the Great Protector had to fabricate this state of affairs to successfully hornswoggle the commissioners, which leads to the next point.

Second, notice that Wilson’s discourse assumes and concedes that his two entities are violating the tax code, which is why he warned them about “applying the law selectively” and that it “must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board.” In other words he said this: “Sure I’m breaking the law, but so is everyone else!” Unfortunately, he didn’t cite any examples of other churches in violation of the tax code, most likely because they don’t exist apart from his imagination. (BTW: the “you’re singling me out” argument is just more paranoia; try using it the next time a cop pulls you over for speeding.) But the point is that Wilson understood that his entities were violating the law and instead of bringing them into conformity, he saw fit to threaten the Latah County commissioners — “Don’t you dare revoke my exemption!”

On a secondary level it’s clear that he was warning the commissioners that if they held him accountable to obey the law, then in his mind they would be joining hands with the unnamed persons who wanted to run his cult out of town. This is really quite amazing when you think about it. He framed a bizarre circumstance for the commissioners where if Latah County compelled his entities to obey the law, then in his mind they were guilty of participating in the vendetta against him to run him out of town. Talk about paranoid. And remember that this is about property tax — the same tax that his entities would not have to pay if they simply obeyed the law. Nevertheless, this is one example in a long list of examples of the Fearless Leader’s contempt for authority, which he couches as personal animosity against him if he must submit to it. Consequently, he would rather threaten the Latah County commissioners with legal action than obey the law and “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2).

Third, notice how Wilson twists the purpose of the law from an instrument appointed by God to protect society from evildoers into an instrument used by Wilson’s enemies to harass him, when he said, “the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores.” This is so perverted. If Wilson simply obeyed the law then there is no “cat’s paw” to “settle personal scores,” as he put it. But don’t miss this: in Wilson’s scenario he — the lawbreaker — is the righteous man and his enemies — the law keepers — are the evildoers. Now consider St. Paul’s instruction:

Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (Rom. 13:2–7)

In his perversion Wilson turned every single principle in this entire directive on its head when he threatened the Latah County commissioners against upholding the law during his ex parte meeting with them. How true are the Apostle’s words: “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).

Finally, please notice that according to the CRE minutes, the Fearless Leader did not take exception to chapter XXIII section IV of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them. (“Of the Civil Magistrate”)

Now, it’s no surprise that Wilson didn’t note his exception during his so-called examination, because in the end he recognizes no authority save his own, and since he threatened the civil magistrate with retribution if they opposed his will, what do you think he would do to the monkey boys who examined him if they found him anything other than “robustly orthodox”? The Great Protector had no authority over the Latah County commissioners when he threatened them, which doesn’t remove his intent to intimidate; however, he had absolute authority over the monkey boys who examined him and he could ruin any one of them without notice if they made the mistake of dissenting from the groupthink — or to use his words, “It opens them up to a great deal of exposure.” And if you think about it, someone in Al Capone’s position wouldn’t have it any other way.

Thank you.

Think Al Capone Part 2

True story: A few years ago I received a phone call from one of the contributors of the book The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (E. Calvin Beisner ed.) I had never met him before and I don’t even remember who referred him to me. But I do remember the point of his call. He and a few others had just locked horns with Wilson over a quotation by John Calvin that the Fearless Leader lifted out of context to leave a false impression. These brothers called him on it and asked him to correct his misrepresentation. I suppose they assumed they were dealing with an honest brother, which is a bad assumption; he is neither honest nor a brother, and true to form Wilson refused to correct the false representation because he insisted everyone else was wrong. And if I’m not mistaken, nothing has changed since then.

So this brother calls me and the second thing I remember about the conversation was that after about an hour I volunteered, “Whenever you think of Wilson, don’t think of a minister of the gospel, think Al Capone. He is not a Christian, he’s a gangster — a thug — and in this respect he’s no different than Al Capone.” I’m sure I developed my point, but it really didn’t matter because the second I said “think Al Capone” I lost my caller. Comparing Wilson to one of America’s most notorious mobsters put him on overload. And to be fair it is a rather large jump from Wilson the habitual liar to Wilson the crime lord (but we only had an hour!).

This brings me to Pastor Dewey Roberts’ answer to my question yesterday on Green Bagginses. Pastor Roberts is a member of the PCA’s highest court — the SJC — and he made it clear that the thought of corrupting justice repulses him when he wrote:

Doug Wilson has tried to get a lot of mileage out of his “charge” against the SJC that we have never talked with Wilkins. Our constitution forbids us to do so! Think Al Capone. Capone wiggled out of several cases which the government brought against him by jury tampering. The members of the SJC are the jury of the highest court in the PCA. Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering? If Steve had remained in the PCA he would have had his opportunity to talk face-to-face with the SJC. He chose to leave instead. So, wise people will take what Wilson says with a grain of salt and consider them to be equal. (emphasis added)

Notice the imperative: “Think Al Capone.” When I read it last night I almost dropped a load on the spot. A member of the PCA’s highest court instructed me to think Al Capone in relation to Wilson’s accusations against the SJC. Déjà vu? Coincidence? Providence? Wire tap? Warp in the Earth’s time-space continuum? You guess.

Then notice the question “Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering?” Presumably Pastor Roberts meant this rhetorically, as a figure of speech where he didn’t want an answer so much as he wanted to make the point that jury tampering defies every principle of justice revealed in Scripture. In law it’s an ex parte (Latin, from (by or for) one party) conversation and it refers to improper contact between a litigant and the judge or a jury member, and Al Capone took his ex parte conversations to new levels — if he couldn’t bribe an official he intimidated them. But rhetorical or not, I want to answer Pastor Roberts’ question because this point cannot be overstated.

In 2004, two local citizens successfully challenged Christ Church’s 501(c)(3) property-tax exemption, based in part on Canon Press’ for-profit status. It’s one thing if Canon Press operates as a nonprofit enterprise for charitable purposes, i.e. the gospel; it’s quite another if the Fearless Leader signs a contract to skim 10% from the “nonprofit” proceeds. At that point Canon Press crosses the line that separates business from charity. The county commissioners had no choice — they had to revoke the exemption, and in doing so they made straight the road for more challenges. Accordingly, in 2005 the same two citizens challenged the property-tax exemptions for two other buildings in the kingdom of Doug — Logos School and the Nuart Theater. This brings us back to Al Capone.

You see, Wilson, like Capone, has a personal aversion to paying taxes, which is probably related to his contempt of lawful authority, and consequently the thought of losing his property-tax exemption, i.e. the thought of the government compelling him to pay taxes, sent him over the edge. In fact, it sent him so far over the edge that he visited the Latah County commissioners to express his concern. Sure, it was a scheduled visit but when he called the county he didn’t state his reason for requesting the meeting, most likely because the County Attorney would not have allowed it — something about ex parte. It’s illegal. Therefore, the meeting took place as scheduled on April 27, 2005; here are excerpts from Douglas Wilson’s testimony to the Latah County commissioners, which he delivered ex parte five weeks before the scheduled tax hearing:

If that is the case and if there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons of their own, my concern, which I wanted to express to you all, face to face, is that the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores. That sort of thing, it appears to me, would be a flagrant example of applying the law selectively. So in other words the “exclusive use,” the particular interpretation of “exclusive use” that you all decided on in the last go round, is now in appeal. That understanding of “exclusive use” must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board. . . . But I think we should all agree that the law should not just be applied to those who are the brunt of the animosity of a handful of people in town who want to run ’em out of town and who want to use the zoning requirements, the Latah County commissioners, or the Board of Adjustors, the Idaho State Attorney General, there was a complaint filed against me there on another thing. I don’t think that that should be — I think that should be recognized and I wanted to appear before you face to face and tell you face to face that that is my fundamental concern. I think it opens Latah County up to a great deal of exposure if the law is applied selectively in that way and I simply wanted to tell you that. . . . I guess the thing I wanted to say is that monsters don’t shrink when you feed them. And I believe it is your responsibility to not just look at the letter of the law, what’s going on in the law but also to look at the town and see what’s happening in town. The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that. . . . But the fact remains that there is a de facto situation on the ground where a year later the tax exemptions that have been removed have been from our two entities; the next two that are threatened are two entities that I sit on the board of and I just wouldn’t want Latah County to make a very expensive mistake. And that’s why I wanted to appear. (emphasis added)

One of the complainants who was not invited and therefore not present for the ex parte meeting posted Wilson’s testimony to the local electronic bulletin board. Moreover, I’ve heard the tapes (there’s bootleg copies floating all over the Palouse) and every word of this transcription is accurate. Furthermore, Beelzeblog himself confirmed his witness in an evasive post called “How We Handle Words”; but if you read it you’ll notice he offers no interpretation and no explanation. I suppose some words defy comment.

Whatever he meant, I am confident that Douglas Wilson’s ex parte conversation with two Latah County commissioners regarding an upcoming hearing answers Pastor Roberts’ question — “Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering?” Yes, he really would want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering as long as he benefited from the hanky-panky. And if this surprises you then you have been working with a lot of false assumptions about the Fearless Leader.

Let there be no illusion: if you ever have doubts about Douglas Wilson’s moral character; if you ever wonder about all the stories of his ruthless behavior; if you ever ask yourself how far he’s willing to go in order to advance his kingdom, then do yourself a favor — Think Al Capone.

Thank you.

What Doug hath joined together

Today marks the first day of this year’s Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference. Of course, the Federal Vision controversy began at the 2002 AAPC where the Monroe Four objectively announced their doctrinal innovations. Six months later the RPCUS resolved the doctrine heresy and called up the heretics’ respective church courts to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, two of the Monroe Four, Wilson and Schlissel, are essentially Congregationalists with no formal ties to any legitimate ecclesiastical authority; the third, John Barach, read the writing on the wall and abandoned accountability in the URC by joining the CREC; and the fourth, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, learned a couple of days ago that the PCA doesn’t “quibble” about the Westminster Confession of Faith. The PCA Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery cites Wilkins’ 2002 AAPC lecture “The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant” no less than seven times.

The theme for this year’s conference is “Liturgy and Life” and the church website describes it thus:

It is our great privilege to announce our Tenth Annual Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference January 7–9, 2008. This year our topic is “Liturgy and Life” and the speakers will explore the importance of worship not only for the church but for all of life. What is the role of liturgy in the life of the child of God? Why is the particular order of the service important? What is the relationship between liturgy and pastoral care? How do you bring liturgical reform in a congregation that has been heavily influenced by American, revivalistic Christianity? These and other questions will be addressed by our four main speakers in our conference this year: Dr. Peter Leithart, Pastor Douglas Wilson, Pastor Jeffrey Meyers, and Dr. James Jordan. . . . The purpose of the conference is to provide encouragement and instruction to pastors and church officers but we encourage all interested laymen to attend as well since the issues covered are of wide interest to all who are concerned for the well being of Christ’s Church. . . . We look forward to having you with us!

Steve Wilkins
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Pastor

Reading this, you can’t miss the bugaboo “American, revivalistic Christianity,” which is probably an early descendant of that other bugaboo “post-Enlightenment Gnosticism.” But the remarkable thing is that these men think themselves authorities on liturgy at the very moment the PCA indicted their host’s presbytery for failing to hold him accountable for the false doctrine driving his form of worship. It’s surreal. I am honestly surprised that none of them had the nerve to address the question, “What is the relationship between liturgy and contempt of constitutional standards?” or “What role does flaunting church discipline play in the life of the church?”

However, the magnitude of Louisiana Presbytery’s dereliction of duty is even more remarkable than these clowns’ hubris. The PCA has never indicted an entire presbytery (and to my knowledge no presbytery has ever pushed their communion this far). This is an historic event. But these clowns don’t care. They are the people and wisdom shall die with them. They believe that their high-church liturgy, which includes a stiff middle finger at the Christian church and a thumb on the nose directed at ecclesiastical authority, will reform the world. Ironically, they don’t see what everyone sees, i.e. their real message: “Reform as we say, not as we reform,” which means that their new Reformation must end in chaos.

Like begets like, whether the FVists like it or not, and their ecclesiastical defiance can only produce yet more defiance. The apostle Paul put it this way: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). But Mark T. puts it this way, “What Doug hath joined together, not even God will put asunder.”

Thank you.

Anonymity Part IV: “Anonymous Sources”

Well now I’m really confused. On the one hand, Beelzeblog vouches for the anonymous news site called Reformed News, but on the other he condemns those who rely on fully documented anonymous sources. Read for yourself:

I read on Reformed News that Sam Duncan, former moderator of the PCA, has provided a summary of the FV in preparation for the big doings at the General Assembly of the PCA this week. But before I start in on my war dance, let me just say that you ought to check out Reformed News far more often than you do. (“That He’d Been In His Bunk Below”)

And this controversy has now revealed the fact that, for a number of our Reformed leaders, acceptance of this kind of testimony, taking it at face value, is perfectly fine with them. They might want to put some sort of high bar on this for acceptance, of course, like “it is only acceptable to receive spurious testimony from anonymous sources if you are contending for the gospel.” (“Dead Rat Behind the Fridge”)

I sure wish he’d get his story straight because I don’t know from one day to the next who to believe. In fact, the only way I can harmonize these two quotes is by concluding that Prince Blog is the dead rat behind the fridge. I wonder who holds him accountable for this.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part III: The Great Protector

I hoped to work this into another post at another time, but given the present circumstances now’s as good as time as any. About 18 months ago Douglas Wilson filed a frivolous complaint with the Moscow Police Department that alleged someone had vandalized his home. Despite furnishing no evidence of any crime, the Bishop of Moscow asserted that, included among these alleged acts, someone placed a used condom in his mailbox. Furthermore, the Great Protector identified in writing the names of four possible suspects (three of them friends of mine), alleging that they publicly criticized him and his church, which in his mind meant that they would therefore also commit a defiling felony.

This incident created no small stir in Moscow because as a high-ranking police officer told me, “I don’t know why he put any names there, half the town hates him.” Not ironically, one of the persons that Wilson identified teaches Sunday school at the church where the Assistant Police Chief serves as a deacon. Ooooops.

Regardless, I note this historic fact because it constitutes one more reason for anyone interested in honest discourse on this matter, such as me, to leave their name out of the conversation rather than incite the Fearless Leader to commit a random act of defamation. He has demonstrated that when it comes to defending his “good” name, he will stoop to all-time lows in order to soil someone else’s.

Thank you.

Lies Within Lies

I find it “astonishing” that Beelzeblog can chastise Guy Waters for not acknowledging the exam he took in front of a few hand-picked confederates, when he insists on misrepresenting the CREC’s form of government as a “presbytery” even though, as its founder and chief architect, he knows it’s a “confederation”:

One of the things that became obvious throughout this review of Waters’ book on the Federal Vision was the extraordinarily sloppy job done by Waters in representing my views fairly or accurately. Unfortunately, this pattern continues in the footnotes and bibliography.

An astonishing ommission [sic] in the bibliography is the doctrinal examination I took before my presbytery in order to address these question. That examination can be found . . . . (“Making the Necessary Qualifications”)

Thank you.

Make That “Post-Enlightenment Hypocritical Gnostics”

Yesterday we saw that the words “spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory,” taken from the CREC Constitution, reveal the CREC’s true nature — they’re Gnostics calling themselves presbyterians despite officially naming themselves a confederation. They’re Gnostics because their constitution limits their “spiritual authority” to “practical advice,” which, if you ask me, is not a particularly big bragging point for the confederates — especially when the Fearless Leader regularly parades the decisions of his “presbytery” before the world, as though it actually exists. In fact, the absence of any mechanism in the CREC Constitution to hold its confederates accountable reveals that, in addition to being Gnostics, they’re flaming independents, or individualists, if you will. Yes, that dreaded sin of individualism. They adopted it whole hog into their founding document, all the while calling themselves “presbyterians.”

But just in case you think the absence of any effective accountability clauses in the CREC Constitution is a confederate oversight, please consider the second paragraph of Article IV, section O, which states:

If a complaint against a member session is brought by someone who is not a member of a CREC church, the CREC, in presbytery, Church council, or through its appropriate moderator, can agree to hear the case if all of the following conditions have been met.

1. The moderator has a letter from the accused session in question declining to hear the case, or a letter advising him that the case was heard and rejected.


2. The moderator has a letter from the government of the church where the complainant is a member saying that the church affirms the truth of the Apostles’ Creed, and agrees to hold the complainant accountable if the decision goes against him. If the complainant is an independent church, the moderator must have a letter of commitment from that church expressing their willingness to give due weight, respect and consideration to the decision of the CREC, and agreeing not to pursue the matter beyond the CREC decision.


3. The charges as framed have two or three available and accountable witnesses listed for each specified complaint.


4. The complainant has not overtly discredited himself in his manner of bringing the charges. (CREC Constitution)

I call this the “retaliation clause” because it demonstrates that the CREC confederates know how to use the principles of accountability to insure retribution. To be sure, while the CREC Constitution confers no authority on its members to hold one another accountable, it positively guarantees that non-members of the CREC cannot bring charges against a CREC church unless their church government agrees to hold them accountable if (when) the CREC decides against them. Furthermore, the complainant must agree to submit to the CREC’s ruling as the final decision if (when) the CREC rules against them. Notice the specifics of subsection (2):

The moderator has a letter from the government of the church where the complainant is a member saying that the church affirms the truth of the Apostles’ Creed, and agrees to hold the complainant accountable if the decision goes against him. If the complainant is an independent church, the moderator must have a letter of commitment from that church expressing their willingness to give due weight, respect and consideration to the decision of the CREC, and agreeing not to pursue the matter beyond the CREC decision. (emphasis added)

Therefore, we may conclude that the CREC confederates affirm the importance of holding others outside of their confederation accountable to biblical authority while they have thoroughly insulated themselves from any accountability to biblical authority, which fits the textbook definition of hypocrisy: “Do as we say, not as we do.” We may also conclude that the CREC confederates are not always Gnostic individualists; they’re only Gnostic individualists when it’s “practically advisory” to protect the Fearless Leader’s best interests, which appears to be at all times.

Thank you

Make That “Post-Enlightenment” Gnostics

According to the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,

The term “church federation” has come into use in recent years to designate the spirit and methods of cooperation and unity that in varied ways are bringing Protestant Churches and Christian bodies into organized affiliation and united action in matters of common interest and service. . . . Historically the federation movement is the United States is linked with the development of the spirit of unity which found expression in the nineteenth century through the American branch of the Evangelical Alliance (q.v.). A conference held in New York, Dec. 3, 1899, took steps which resulted in the organization of the National Federation of Churches and Christian Workers. . . . The difference between federated union and organic church union is clearly defined in the stipulation that “this Federal Council shall have no authority over the constituent bodies adhering to it: but its province shall be limited to the expression of its counsel and the recommending of a course of action in matters of common interest to the Churches, local councils, and individual Christians.” (New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 3, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1952, digital facsimile edition] 90, 91, emphasis added)

Did you catch the date of the first “federation” of churches? They’re nineteenth century. This means that the CREC’s form of government is not only Gnostic, it’s post-Enlightenment Gnostic!

It gets better. Notice the words “this Federal Council shall have no authority over the constituent bodies adhering to it: but its province shall be limited to the expression of its counsel and the recommending of a course of action,” which are taken from the NFCCW Constitution, and compare them with this line: “The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory,” which is from the CREC Constitution.

At least the National Federation of Churches and Christian Workers didn’t mistake itself for a presbytery.

Thank you.

Gnostic Accountability

Continuing my thread on Douglas Wilson’s so-called “accountability,” today we shall consider his accountability to the denomination that he founded, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), which requires us to examine the CREC Constitution. And whenever you discuss CREC constitutional matters, the first issue you must contemplate relates to honesty and competence. I say this because the CREC Constitution specifically identifies the CREC as a “presbytery” fifty-three times, whereas it only uses the word “confederation” a total of seven — once in the title and six times in the “Preamble.”

Obviously this should concern anyone interested in truthful discourse because these men have front loaded the conversation with false witness before it ever begins and if they don’t have the capacity — moral or mental — to accurately identify their assembly, then at that point the question that all interested parties must answer is whether the CREC confederates incorporated this falsehood into their founding document because they are dishonest or incompetent. I suppose the judgment of charity would argue for incompetence but I am willing to hear other positions.

This brings us to the CREC and the “accountability” clause in its constitution, which you have to read carefully because there is only one article that vests limited authority in the confederates to act in a disciplinary capacity. It states:

Article IV. The Broader Assemblies. . . .
L. After a fair and open judicial hearing at presbytery, a congregation may be removed from membership in the presbytery by a two-thirds vote of the presbytery. Upon such occasions, the removed congregation retains the full right of appeal to council.

M. Issues relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before the broader assemblies are specified in this section. All matters not itemized here must be adjudicated and resolved at the level of the local church.

Before any appeal is made, a matter must be first addressed at the local church level. Appeal may be made (1) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of participating in or tolerating grievous dishonesty in subscription to the doctrinal or constitutional standards of the local church; or, (2) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of gross misbehaviour. In any case where at least two witnesses are from the same household, three witnesses are required to hear the case. The broader assemblies must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals.

Appeals to council do not necessarily have to first be heard by presbytery. However, council may choose to remand the case to presbytery.

N. When an appeal comes to presbytery, a simple majority at presbytery is necessary to decide the issue; the decision of presbytery shall be considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a council to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the CREC. The matter may be appealed further to the council by the appellant. The council must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals. A simple majority at council is necessary to decide the issue; the decision of council shall be considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a future council to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the CREC. Decisions of council can be appealed to a future council, though the future council is not obligated to receive such an appeal.

O. The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory. If the elders of a particular congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader church, they may do so without deprivation of property. However, if their disregard of godly counsel is particularly egregious, they may be removed from membership in the CREC, in accordance with Section M and O. (CREC Constitution, Article IV, sections L—O)

Notice the details. Everything pivots on the qualification in section M: “Issues relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before the broader assemblies are specified in this section.” In other words, the CREC Constitution prohibits the confederates from hearing anything other than what section M specifies and, accordingly, the CREC can only hear cases brought by members of a CREC church and those members must bring charges against their entire session of elders. That’s it. No mas. Therefore, if an elder, a session of elders, or even a “presbytery” (the CREC has two, so called) in the CREC took offense at Wilson’s reprehensible conduct or his false doctrine, the CREC Constitution gives them no standing to pursue remedy. And even if they had standing to bring charges, the CREC Constitution grants no authority to the confederates to take disciplinary action. Section O states:

The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory. If the elders of a particular congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader church, they may do so without deprivation of property. (emphasis added)

Make careful note of the words “spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.” This is the sum total of the confederation’s constitutional power. It is purely “spiritual,” which the constitution defines as nothing more than “practical advice,” except in egregious cases when the CREC Constitution authorizes the confederates to expel a member church.

For you CREC monkey boys reading this, here lies the difference between a “presbytery” and a “confederation.” While these sections of the CREC Constitution continually refer to the CREC as a “presbytery” (because of dishonesty or incompetence), the governing document never vests authority in its members to exercise discipline. They are completely powerless to act in any biblical capacity. They cannot censure; they cannot excommunicate; they cannot restore; they cannot comment on standing — good or bad; they can only expel. They have absolutely no authority to discipline. Simply put, they’re Gnostics.

Thank you.

More on Accountability

Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. — 1 Timothy 5:22

Yesterday I addressed the constitutional safeguards that Douglas Wilson implemented at Christ Church to thoroughly insulate himself from true biblical accountability to the Kirk’s “gelders” (cross between “gelding” and “elder”). Today I want to contemplate a subject related to this, namely, the legitimacy of Wilson’s so-called “ministry,” which is a point that deserves more consideration by everyone involved in this controversy.

A couple of weeks ago, on November 18, 2007, Douglas Wilson included the following narrative in a post on his blog:

But secondly, just to show how reliable “the facts” are when obtained by this method, let’s do a little review. Now I know that some of what I am about to recite may not clear the high PCA threshhold [sic] of anonymous attack blogs, but you do what you can, you know? Our church was planted by an Evangelical Free Church in Pullman, Washington. The early leadership of our congregation, which included me, formed under their oversight. So no, not self-ordained and not self-installed. . . . As Paul would say, I am out of my mind to talk like this, but your have forced me to it. But if any of you want to double check this with the critics, go ahead and give Mark T a call — if you can find his number in the phone book. Br’er Mark, he lay low. (“Standing Google Commission”)

Make careful note here, because sandwiched in between the two sets of insults Wilson gives us his qualification for Christian ministry, i.e., his ordinal credentials. And you have to be careful for another reason as well, because Wilson implies and denies more than he affirms, which is classic dougspeak. Here is the sum total of his credentials:

Our church was planted by an Evangelical Free Church in Pullman, Washington. The early leadership of our congregation, which included me, formed under their oversight. So no, not self-ordained and not self-installed.

Accordingly, from Wilson’s account we may conclude:

1. Christ Church was planted by an Evangelical Free Church in Pullman, Washington.


2. E Free, Pullman, “formed” the leadership of Christ Church and provided “oversight.”


3. Wilson is not “self-ordained” or “self-installed.”

That’s it. And that’s the best spin he could put on it. Please note, because this is critical to understanding dougspeak, Wilson gives us two affirmative statements and two denials but he never tells us that anyone ever “ordained” him or that anyone ever “installed” him, because he knows these events never took place.

Last year someone raised the question of Wilson’s ordination on the comments section of a now-defunct blog. A former officer of CEF (now called Christ Church) answered that in the late ’70s or perhaps 1980, Wilson’s father, Jim Wilson (who I do not believe has any ministerial orders apart from self-will), and a legitimately ordained officer in the Evangelical Free Church of America “commissioned” Douglas Wilson, his brother Evan, and a few other men to the work of Faith Fellowship (the precursor of CEF), a church plant, in the backroom of a Christian bookstore. Evan Wilson confirmed this historical fact on the same blog in the same comments thread. In other words, NO ONE EVER ORDAINED DOUGLAS WILSON FOR THE MINISTRY AND NO ONE EVER INSTALLED HIM AS PASTOR. He was “commissioned” to the work of a church plant with a few other men and that’s it. He can’t even claim a back-alley ordination.

And in this context Wilson the rogue would still have us believe that he is accountable to a lawful church authority. But as Paul would have it, no one laid hands on him, no one partook of his sins: the Christian church has kept itself pure from the iniquity of Douglas Wilson — which explains why to this day he accounts to no man.

Post Script: It’s worth noting that in the summer of 2003, when Douglas Wilson conducted daily imprecatory prayer meetings to maledict evangelical Christians, he and his disciples named the elders of the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, including the man who participated in his “commissioning,” in their imprecations.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part II

Before I resume my defense of anonymity, I need to debunk the myth that Douglas Wilson is effectively accountable to anyone, because he cannot get through a sentence with the words “anonymous accuser” or “anonymous witness” without invoking accountability. And of course, we all know that Douglas Wilson is accountable to someone — a session of elders, a band of confederates, the civil magistrate — someone, for his words and behavior. At least that’s the impression he leaves. But impression isn’t reality, except in the land of DUMB, and accountability does not exist simply because someone implies it.

This brings us to the following article in the Christ Church Constitution, which states:

Removal of PASTORS, Elders, and Deacons
If an elder believes himself to be fit for office, but two or three believers hold that he is unfit, these two or three witnesses should request a special session of the elder board where they would be allowed to present their case (1 Tim. 5:19). If the elders unanimously decide that the case has merit, that elder, depending on the gravity of the charges and his response to the correction, will be rebuked in the presence of the heads of households (1 Tim. 5:20), or will be removed from the office of elder (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Tit. 1:5–9), or both.

While Christ Church encourages her pastor(s) toward a long-term view of the ministry, in the providence of God, changes in a pastor’s call to a particular church arise for both righteous and sinful reasons. In cases involving moral failures requiring disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary process for the removal of a pastor is the same as for other officers. For cases that do not involve moral failures or disciplinary proceedings (e.g., Acts 15:33–41, Romans 15:22–33, 1 Corinthians 16:5–12), the procedure for terminating the call of a pastor, thereby dismissing him from service at Christ Church, is as follows: If a pastor desires to terminate his call, he shall duly inform the session of his desire. In the case of an involuntary termination of his call, a pastor may be recommended for dismissal from service at Christ Church by a unanimous vote of the session (excluding said pastor). In such a case, the pastor may have recourse to the electors by calling for a vote to either sustain his call as pastor or not (with an option to abstain). If the electors sustain his call by a two-thirds majority vote, the other elders must afterwards either concede to his call or refer the matter to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals for binding arbitration. (Christ Church Constitution)

Please notice the twofold use of the word “unanimous” and the four layers of insulation protecting Wilson. In the event of charges, the elders must vote unanimously that “the case has merit” (also notice the built-in ambiguity — “merit” does not equal “guilt,” which gives him room to maneuver if the case has merit). If the “merit” is sufficient for removal, then the elders must vote unanimously to remove Wilson. If this vote passes, Wilson can lobby the congregation to overturn the unanimous vote of their elders. Finally, if the elders don’t like it, they can take the matter to the CREC — just as Andrew Sandlin and Church of the King–Santa Cruz did. And these are only the constitutional hurdles. The Kirk constitution omits the part about many of the Kirk elders’ financial dependence on Wilson and his institutions, such as Logos School, NSA, or Canon Press, where Wilson sits on the boards with other Kirk elders, which creates a hopeless conflict of interest for every one of them. Do the math. No one can touch Wilson without a unanimous vote of the elders, the majority of whom depend upon him for their livelihoods.

So let’s say you’re one of Wilson’s 12–15 (I lost count) hand-picked elders and you work at Logos School, where he is a lifetime board member sitting next to three other hand-picked elders on the board. Furthermore, let’s say that your conscience (I know, it’s a stretch) bears witness that you must remove Douglas Wilson from the ministry because he is an offense to the gospel. Moreover, you know that if you vote your conscience and at least one other elder does not share your conviction, then Wilson will see to your unemployment quicker than you can say, “Duck.” Now, do you vote your conscience or do you stick your finger in the wind?

Obviously this self-serving system of “accountability” does not constitute any meaningful accountability. Wilson chose his hirelings to serve as elders precisely because he knew they understood their role in life was to worship the Lord their Doug — not to hold him accountable. This is why monkey boy Mike Lawyer stuck a dagger in Bob Mattes’ back in the “Attack From Moscow” and no Kirk officer peeped. He, like the rest of them, was serving the Lord his Doug — to whom they all give account.

Think about it. Mike Lawyer makes $50,000 a year (plus or minus a few), has a few children, a truck payment, and a mortgage. He’s stretched to the max. And he knows that if Wilson questioned his loyalty to the Lord his Doug, he would terminate him in a heartbeat just as he did all the others (BG, CL, DS . . . the list grows), and that’s just the economic penalty. Aggravating this conflict, Lawyer knows that no legitimate Christian church would ever call him to the ministry after they see all the Doug scat on his resume. The man is hopelessly conflicted.

In a sense, Wilson has trapped the Kirk elders in worse positions than anyone else in the Kult. But don’t feel sorry for them. They’re the ones who sat idly by and consented to his iniquity — the threats, the abuse, the intimidation, the reviling, the treachery, the false witness, the blasphemy — you name it. Indeed, they sanctioned this sewage, they can drink it to the dregs.

But the point is that Douglas Wilson has rigged the system. The Christ Church Constitution grants the Kirk elders no real authority to hold Wilson accountable. It’s merely the document establishing their castrated office, which insures that he will never answer to anyone in any meaningful, biblical way. And they know it. They know, just as he knows, that they have no authority over him whatsoever.

So every time Wilson points to those black holes in the universe called elders, saying, “They hold me accountable,” just remind yourself that he’s fulfilling Scripture, which says, “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13).

Thank you.

Anonymity Part I

Please meet Patrick Poole, a man of whom Douglas Wilson said, “I have known Mr. Poole to act with integrity in the past,” and who is a friend of mine. I know Pat well enough to guess that he probably does not want to get dragged back into Kult Kombat, but I must invoke his testimony (for a short period) as my first witness for the reason why I conceal my identity.

In February 2006, Patrick posted a couple of hard-hitting essays critical of Doug Wilson and the CREC on his blog, and less than a week later he uploaded this post, which he has since removed. Nevertheless, his testimony stands:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2006
Kutting My Losses on the Kirk Kult
The time has come for me to cry uncle. I must say “no mas” to the Wilsonistas. They have won. At this point in time, I cannot continue to endure the Wilsonistas harassment jihad that has now spread to my friends, my clients, and my church in the wake of my posts over the past week. Some are also trolling for dirt on me for what I can only assume would be the basis for ad hominem attacks to avoid answering the very direct questions I’ve put to the Great Leader. In the final analysis, there are just simply too many Wilsonistas starting fires for me to possibly contemplate putting them all out. I must call it quits and admit defeat before they try to burn down everything around me. I must confess that I greatly underestimated how quickly they have acted. I guess what I wrote hit too close to home.

Could it be that this harassment jihad launched by Doug Wilson’s apologists and lackeys against me is entirely unorganized and is in no way connected to the Sultan of Subjectivity? That very well might be the case. I certainly don’t have any iron-clad evidence that it is an orchestrated effort. But if that’s the case, there is certainly a culture of venom and malice that has been allowed to flourish around the Kirk Kult, with the use of destructive and unchristian methods nourished and justified by the writings and sermons of the Bhagwan himself under the guise of “Trinitarian skylarking” and “the serrated edge.” Honestly, the harassment would be more tolerable if the Wilsonistas were in reality as funny or as witty as they believe themselves to be (but aren’t).

In retrospect, the fault is entirely my own. I knew what I was getting into. I thrust my hand into the viper’s nest and got bit. Shame on me. As Blind Willy Johnson used to sing, “Nobody’s Fault But Mine.”

But what the Wilsonistas won’t admit is that IT IS a viper’s nest that they are a part of. The politics of personal destruction I’ve encountered (and my friends and associates have experienced for the crime of being associated with me) at the hands of the Kirk Kult in recent days is standard practice for the Wilsonistas and their Great Leader. Just ask Terry Morin, who dared speak out and had his company suffer at the hands of the Wilsonistas because of it. But even more important than any financial repercussions was the deliberate damage done to Terry’s reputation by the false witness and trumped-up charges filed against him by Doug Wilson and the elders of Kirk Kult, charges that were only withdrawn only because the Great Leader’s documents were shown to be forgeries on the unanimous testimony of everyone else involved. Thankfully, Terry had his church to examine Wilson’s lies and clear his name. Others that have tried to escape the Kirk orbit have not been so lucky.

I realize that any pain and suffering I might have endured at the hands of the Wilsonistas during this very brief affair is minimal compared to what others have experienced. I know; I’ve heard from many of the Wilson-wounded over the past week. I suspect why so many of the “fellowship of the grievance” have gravitated to me is because I expressed in my two posts from two thousand miles away what they have had to live through in real life day to day. They maybe believed that I identified with them because I was willing to say publicly that the drug dens at New St. Andrews, the illegal Kirk elder-approved casinos and the documented payoffs involved, which are just a normal part of the landscape of WilsonWorld, is a demonstration of a thoroughly corrupt culture — all of which is lost on the Wilsonistas and the Wilson apologists. It’s clear that they don’t care. Having been in the PCA for almost 15 years, I can’t remember a single instance of a troubled church having these kinds of problems, which seem to be so commonplace in the Kirk.

In closing, I appreciate that I’ve been warmly welcomed in as a member of the “fellowship of the grievance.” It is a badge of honor. These are kind and sincere Christian people, and I feel like I’m abandoning them to the furies of the Wilsonistas by my rapid retreat, perhaps even encouraging further abuse. They will be the one’s left to clean up the shattered lives when the Kirk Kult reaches its inevitable end. When that day comes, I suspect that they will exhibit extraordinary grace and charity, never once thinking to say, “I told you so.” May God bless them for continuing to bear up.

With that said, this will be my last post on the matter.
POSTED BY PATRICK POOLE AT 6:49 PM 1 COMMENTS

A local columnist wrote a follow-up article to Patrick’s piece, which you can read here, and please notice Douglas Wilson’s comment; he wrote: “Joan, could you help me out here? Who is Patrick Poole? I am a little behind the curve.” Of course, Wilson was lying because the only thing that happened between that comment, dated February 26, 2006, and this comment, dated June 15, 2007, is the passing of time. In fact, Patrick nailed Wilson several more times from another blog (which I commend only as far as it comments on Wilson, Moscow, and the CREC).

So at one time Wilson pretends he has no knowledge of Patrick Poole, and at another he declares him a man of integrity. Patrick, however, is not a man easily flattered. He replied to Wilson’s sweet talk with this comment. I for one am thankful for Patrick’s integrity.

In Part II I will provide more testimony from local witnesses whom Wilson and his goons attempted to silence through bullying harassment. It’s just more of the same, only the names are different. But the lesson I would have you learn from Patrick Poole’s testimony is that if you want to criticize Wilson in public, you better not give him any handles such as your name. Witness Patrick Poole. After all, Douglas Wilson says that he is a man of integrity.

Thank you.

POST SCRIPT: Very shortly I will pull Patrick’s essay out of respect for him. I will not drag him back into this; I am sure he’s had enough. I post it because his testimony is compelling.

One Year Ago Yesterday

One year ago yesterday the Church of the King–Santa Cruz (COTK) announced its withdrawal from the CREC with an exceptionally well-written statement that left no room for anyone to misunderstand its meaning — or its point. Accordingly, pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, consciously and deliberately connived behind the backs of COTK’s leadership, over the course of two years, to split their congregation into two churches, because he had a private beef with the pastor, P. Andrew Sandlin.

And, not surprisingly, Douglas Wilson responded to COTK’s statement right on queue, according to his built-in algorithm, which drives him to chill any kind of negative criticism about himself or his institutions. Consequently, he dispatched his monkey boys to pressure COTK into removing the statement from their website. COTK obliged its former fellow confederates by redacting Wilson’s name from the statement and offering the unabridged transcript to anyone upon request. Moral of the subplot: “Be careful what you ask for.”

Ironically, while Wilson may have succeeded partially in stifling COTK, he could not stop Google whose cache had stored COTK’s original statement. Within days several bootleg sites appeared on the web, taking the edge off the chill. This website has the best documentation; this website has the best graphic. Moral of the subplot: “Google bows to no pope.”

However, in honor of this anniversary, I want to note the CREC’s account of Wilson’s pastoral care for COTK as recorded in their annual meeting minutes. You will recall that the elders of the COTK asked their fellow confederates in the CREC to redress Wilson’s actions against COTK, hoping that their fellow confederates would fulfill their biblical and constitutional charge by checking Wilson’s sinful behavior — if not disciplining him altogether. And on the surface, COTK had a slam-dunk case against Wilson for up and down violations of the CREC Constitution, in addition to Holy Scripture. Think about it. The man knowingly exploited the powers of his office to subvert the COTK elders’ biblical and constitutional charge in order to split the church because he had a personal vendetta against Andrew Sandlin. Sounds like a no-brainer — especially when you consider the vows that all confederates must promise prior to joining the CREC. And we all know that CREC boys are covenant keepers, not covenant breakers:

Do you, with all the officers of your church, commit yourselves in faithfulness to the churches in this Confederation: to keep with them the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to pray for them, to comfort them, to encourage them, to admonish them, and to rule with them in accordance with the Constitution of this Confederation and in full submission to the Word of God? (CREC Book of Procedures, Article V/3/b)

But when COTK appealed to the CREC, they neglected to consider the monkey-boy factor, i.e. monkey boys live to please the Little Man Behind the Curtain (LMBC) regardless of vows, creeds, confessions, constitutions, or Scripture. Furthermore, monkey boys intrinsically understand their obligation to smooth over the rough spots created by the LMBC whenever the fallout from his sin spills into the public arena and raises questions about his character.

Please read the CREC account of the COTK affair and try to make sense of it. Better yet, try to harmonize it with COTK’s statement:

Moderator Wilson distributed a written report issued by Moderator Booth of the CREC Council on his work with Christ Church, Moscow and Church of the King, Santa Cruz. . . .

4:31 p.m. — Presbytery recessed for the day.

Friday, October 27, 2006

8:04 a.m. — The meeting was called to order by Moderator Wilson. . . .

Elder James Ratliff offered a report on Church of the King, Santa Cruz, CA, with commentary on the actions of the Moderator of Anselm Presbytery [Douglas Wilson].

In his capacity as Moderator of Council and as chairman of the committee mediating between the sessions of Church of the King, Santa Cruz, CA, and Christ Church, Moscow, ID, Pastor Randy Booth offered a response to Elder Ratliff’s concerns.

Moderator Wilson responded to Elder Ratliff’s concerns with special reference to the question whether the CREC is a “church.”

06/10/27:3 Motion (Schlect/Tuuri) to receive the report of the Moderator of Council with commendation.

The maker and seconder of the motion restated the motion as follows: “Motion to acknowledge receipt of this report with commendation.”

Motion (Ewert/Jones) to amend the motion to read as follows: “Motion to receive this report and commend the action taken.” The motion to amend carried.

The main motion carried as amended.

Elder James Ratliff reported that the session of Church of the King had complied fully with the requirements made of them by the mediation committee.

Pastor Garry Vanderveen led the Presbytery in prayer.

10:27 a.m. — Presbytery recessed for a short break.
10:39 a.m. — Presbytery reconvened.

06/10/27:4 Motion (Schlect/Hatcher) to specifically acknowledge our moderator’s constitutional and pastoral prerogative to advise formation of a new mission church in the Santa Cruz area if he believes it prudent, urging him all the while to act with due charity toward Church of the King and, in light of the present situation, in regular conference with Joost Nixon, Garry Vanderveen, and Ralph Smith.

Motion (Ewert/Broesamle) to amend the motion by assigning the moderator of council to be chairman of the new committee, instead of the moderator of Anselm Presbytery. The motion carried 14–11.

11:12 a.m. — Presbytery recessed for a brief discussion among the moderators of the Presbyteries and Council.

11:13 a.m. — Presbytery reconvened.

Motion (Stoos/Nixon) to table the main motion. The motion to table the motion carried.

Pastor Dennis Tuuri, Moderator pro tempore of Anselm Presbytery, assumed the chair.

Pastor Douglas Wilson spoke about the issue of the moderator’s personal involvement in the business of Presbytery, and the practical difficulty of a moderator being asked to recuse himself precisely when he is the one most in position to solve certain problems.

Douglas Wilson resumed the chair.

06/10/27:5 Motion (Schlect/Hatcher) to specifically acknowledge the Anselm moderator’s constitutional and pastoral prerogative to advise formation of a new mission church in the Santa Cruz area if he believes it prudent, urging him all the while to act with due charity toward Church of the King and, in light of the present situation, in regular conference with Joost Nixon, Garry Vanderveen, and Ralph Smith. The motion carried. . . . (2006 Anselm Presbytery Minutes, pages 7–9, emphasis original)

From reading this account you would never know that “Moderator Wilson” actively divided COTK in half. In fact, it leaves the distinct impression that Wilson helped plant a CREC “mission church” in Santa Cruz and that whatever happened relative to COTK, the confederates received Moderator Wilson’s account of the event “with commendation.”

But you would never know that the CREC monkey boys ratified by vote the complete surrender of their constitutional authority to one man, authorizing him to sin with impunity, so that he may walk about, seeking whom he may devour. Moral of the story: “Be careful whom you let devour, because it’s only a matter of time before he devours you.”