The End Thereof

Last weekend a dispute erupted over some of Pastor Lane Keister’s comments about Doug Wilson’s doctrinal orthodoxy. Personally, I don’t agree with any judgment that affirms Wilson is a Christian, orthodox or not, but I know that other men do not see with my eyes and they must judge according to the light that God has given them. Nevertheless, I want to consider Pastor Lane’s comments from another angle, by comparing them to statements made by other leaders during this controversy.

For example, in January 2007, Dr. Scott Clark posted an excellent essay on his blog, which included this paragraph:

The bottom line is that I do not believe that I misunderstand Doug. Doug’s on a journey. He was an Arminian. Then he moved into the Reformed orbit. I think he signed the Cambridge Declaration. Now he’s passing through the outer fringes of Reformed Christianity toward another orbit. He’s a talented and articulate fellow and I guess he’ll take some folk with him. My goal is to try to help folks see clearly what’s happening and maybe to keep a few of them from following him to whatever star he’s heading. (“(Reformed) Christianity and (Quasi-Reformed) Revisionism”)

Please notice these three points:

1. Doug’s on a journey.


2. He’s a talented and articulate fellow.


3. He’ll take some folk with him.

Dr. Clark is correct. Wilson is on a journey (from Arminianism to the outer fringes to Guyana and beyond); he is talented and articulate; and he plans to shipwreck as many souls as possible. But notice also that Dr. Clark didn’t pick a fight with Wilson. Indeed, if I read this post correctly, this was his adieu to the Fearless Leader and the Federal Visionists. Please take the time to read it because he makes a strong case for his refusal to engage them any further and, likewise, for warning others against following them.

This takes us to a statement made by Dr. John Piper during a recent interview:

Dr. Piper in your defense of the gospel against N.T. Wright have you found Federal Vision theology of Doug Wilson to be another gospel?

[John] P[iper]: No. No, that’s easy. Doug Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel. I don’t think N.T. Wright teaches a false gospel, just a confusing gospel. Doug Wilson is incredibly bright, but he has people around him who are dumb. I think Doug Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers are. But I am concerned about the trajectory. (“Text and Context Conference: Q & A Session with John Piper, Matt Chandler, and Mark Driscoll”)

This is an interesting answer and there is much more here than meets the eye. First, however, please notice that Piper echoed Dr. Clark’s points:

1. Wilson is incredibly brilliant — “He’s a talented and articulate fellow.”


2. He has people around him who are dumb — “He’ll take some folk with him.”


3. I am concerned about the trajectory — “Doug’s on a journey.”

Notice also that while Piper didn’t pick a fight with Wilson, his words are unmistakable. It’s no accident that he juxtaposed Wilson’s brilliance next to his followers’ dim wits. The point is obvious. Wilson knows that he has surrounded himself with pinheads. How else can you reconcile his genius with their stupidity? Honestly, Mark Horne has the IQ of a banana peel and there couldn’t be more pudding in two heads than Xon Hostetter and David Gray who regularly advance dishonest and incoherent arguments on GB to defend the Fearless Leader. Does anyone really believe that Wilson doesn’t know their lofts are vacant? Of course he does. But morons don’t ask hard questions because they lack the mental capacity to observe plain inconsistencies. To be sure, they need spin to stabilize their equilibrium. And the Great Protector knows this, hence the reason he blows so often with such vehemence. He has to fill those black holes in his universe.


Piper continued: “I am concerned about the trajectory.” Well, that’s a no-brainer; Wilson’s drift (moral & doctrinal) has not occurred in a vacuum. As Dr. Clark observed, you could chart it. More importantly, he’s going somewhere. Brilliant people don’t just wander aimlessly; they establish goals and make plans to achieve them. And Wilson is no different. This explains why, on the one hand, he pads his writings with enough orthodoxy to hold men such men as Piper at bay, and on the other hand he keeps company with such scoundrels as Rich Lusk and Steven “Machen” Wilkins, even using his confederation to shelter them from ecclesiastical accountability. It’s all part of the plan. You don’t think these historic facts are coincidences, do you?

But where is Wilson’s trajectory pointed? Well, he’s on record saying that he wants to “close the distance” between the FVists and NT Wright: “I am not talking about creating distance with someone like Wright on the basis of what might happen, I am talking about how fast and how cautiously we close the distance — and I do think we should close it.” So while Piper believes Wilson doesn’t teach a false gospel and Piper believes that Wright teaches a confusing gospel, Wilson understands Wright’s confusion well enough that he wants the FV position to get closer to it.

This takes us to Pastor Lane’s comments that led to no small disagreement last weekend, when he wrote:

My problem with Wilson lies in this: although Wilson says many things that are Reformed in a positive sense, he is not willing to reject the errors of the other FV proponents. I am willing to believe that Wilson holds to justification by faith alone, although he is too ambiguous on the aliveness of faith and its place in justification. He does hold to imputation. But he will not distance himself from any error of the FV, no matter how egregious. That is why, if Wilson were to apply for admission into the Presbytery of which I am a part, I could not vote to approve his transfer of credentials. What I have sought to show is that it is not enough to affirm the truth. One must also reject the errors. This is equally important to affirming the truth.

This strikes me as one of those “half-empty/half-full” observations. Wilson says all the correct things (half full) when he affirms justification by faith alone but he refuses to deny all the wrong things, which is where Pastor Lane sees him half empty. Nevertheless, I can’t think of a bigger slam coming from Lane than when he said he would vote against receiving Wilson into his presbytery. Think about it. Wilson positively despises Lane and the PCA while he thinks he and his CREC are one big mighty vessel of reformation. Could Lane say anything more humiliating to the guitar man than he takes him at his word but would not want him in his presbytery? I think not. WHAP! Pastor Lane body slams Dougzilla.

As the disagreement grew, Lane wrote this:

I was saddened when Doug Wilson signed the FV document. He should not have done so, in my judgment. However, I do not think that Wilson is consistent between his own teachings, on the one hand, and his signing the document, on the other. Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FV’ers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others. . . . I said that rejecting the errors that attack the Reformed faith is equally as important as formulating right doctrine. . . But Wilson has said repeatedly (and demonstrated also, I believe), that, on these two points, he holds to Reformed doctrine. If I am to be attacked for so saying, then so be it. But I have not given Wilson a clean bill of health, doctrinally speaking. (emphasis original)

Notice that apart from not picking a fight with Wilson, Pastor Lane took the exact opposite tack of Clark and Piper. First, contra Piper who said, “Wilson is more consistent than some of his followers,” Lane flagged Wilson’s inconsistencies: “I do not think that Wilson is consistent. . .” Second, contra Clark and Piper, Lane made a distinction between Wilson and his circle of idiots: “Apparently, Sean sees no difference between Wilson and the other FVers. I do. That is why I do not see Wilson as speaking for any of the others.” But Wilson immediately corrected Lane:

As for my signing the FV document, you have to understand that I was in an awkward place. I drafted the document, circulated it, and was the editor who included all the great suggestions I received. For me to have thrown down at the last minute, refusing to sign it, would have been outrageous behavior, even for me.

I don’t know if this surprised Lane, but I am happy that Wilson showed where his loyalties lay. This admission should put an end to any questions about Wilson’s role in this doctrinal disruption in the Church. He is the point man and he speaks for them even if they have not publicly designated him their official spokesman. So Lane called attention to Wilson’s blurry language:

I think Wilson does hold to justification by faith alone, even if some of his language is ambiguous. The trouble we are having here is precisely that. Some of us wish to say that Doug’s ambiguity means that he doesn’t hold to JBFA at all. Others of us think that he does, even if it is not as clear as it should be.

This may be a stretch, but when Lane contrasted Wilson’s inconsistency and ambiguity with his affirmative statements, he essentially marked the path of Wilson’s trajectory. In other words, he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson claims for himself (and gladly said he believes him) and he identified the doctrinal position that Wilson left open for himself, i.e. his general trajectory.

Pastor Lane isn’t stupid. He can see what Clark, Piper, and the rest of the planet Earth sees, but he doesn’t have to force the issue. There’s no sin in pointing out that the Fearless Leader — that veritable fount of illumination — is inconsistent. And there’s no sin in erring on the side of charity by letting Wilson have it both ways. Who looks more foolish? — Lane for graciously conceding Wilson’s claims and noting his self-contradiction? — or Wilson for acting brilliant while he holds the absurd? This is good.

Wilson is a shrewd snake; he knows he’s inconsistent and he knows he’s ambiguous. He also knows that he’s going somewhere. Don’t ignore this: Wilson runs with the FVists for a reason; Wilson wrote the FV PR statement for a reason; and Wilson uses the CREC to give refuge to the FVists for a reason. All of these events are by design and all of them account for his inconsistency and his trajectory — Wilson is one of them; he believes everything they believe.

Douglas Wilson is deliberately lying about JBFA but Lane is making a record. This means that when Wilson finally bares his fangs, which is inevitable because he cannot remain in the closet forever, he will have to account for this massive pile of deceit in addition to his massive doctrinal shift. And neither Wilson nor the devil himself could deceive their way out of that.

Doug Wilson is playing game. He’s playing Lane for a fool and for his part Lane appears content to take Wilson on one side of his word while not making him account for the other. But one day the game must end. One day Wilson’s trajectory will finish its course. And when his journey finds its ultimate destination, which is somewhere past Moscow in between Jonestown and hell, he and his brain-dead disciples will learn what all of his non-Christian cultic forbears discovered — that the just live by faith and God is not mocked. On that day, however, Douglas Wilson will finally understand the meaning of wisdom as Solomon taught it when he wrote, “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Thank you.

Moon This

An anonymous comment on my anonymous attack blog referred me to Beelzeblog’s latest post in his Auburn Avenue category. He writes,

It has been recently pointed out that my degrees are in philosophy, not theology, and that therefore I ought not to be messing around with the Reformed confessions. I agree with this sentiment entirely, which is why I don’t go around messing with the confessions. But unfortunately, while it is possible for a man like me to avoid messing with the confessions, it is not possible to keep some people’s children from asserting that I have been messing with the confessions. (“Mooning the Ref”)

I presume these words are his response to this comment on Green Bagginses. Regardless, I would like to remind the Prince of Blog and Mablog of something he wrote at another time, in what is arguably his most controversial book:

Something can be “confessional” and wrong. But we are like the obedient boy in the parable — we say the confession could be wrong, but then we affirm the confession. (“Reformed” Is Not Enough, page 8, emphasis original)

Therefore, if the he really believes that he lacks the proper training to “go around messing with the confessions,” i.e. he isn’t intellectually qualified, then I recommend he refrain from speculating — in print — that the confession could be wrong.

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.

Disappeared in the Night

U P D A T E :
Yesterday at this time Google said something to the effect that the owner blocked Google’s access, similar to the message that archive.org gives for hatesplotch.net. I assume that Lawyer has now unblocked the block.

Douglas Wilson’s “personal assistant,” Mike Lawyer, has removed Wilson’s knife from Bob Mattes’ back by secretly pulling his offensive email from his website. And in typical Kirk fashion, Lawyer has not apologized and he has not repented because, in his mind, removing the post makes it as though nothing happened. “What post are you talking about? There’s nothing there.” Welcome to the land of DUMB, where deception is reality.

Last night Andy Gilman posted a link to Mr. Lawyer’s blog, but this morning the link was dead. So another brother posted a link to Google’s cache display of the post, which worked fine for me, but within hours Mr. Lawyer killed Google’s access to it.

Now it’s gone — disappeared in the night — and monkey boys everywhere can rest assured that their Fearless Leader’s assistant did no wrong.

“A” for “Abuse”

In this post I referenced a man whose employment Wilson terminated after his wife challenged Wilson’s character. During that period of the Kirk’s history, Wilson was searching for a “mole” whom he believed was leaking Kirk information to the general public. So when he got wind of the wife’s remarks (which were really benign), he thought he found his mole. He immediately terminated the husband’s employment at Canon Press and then sent this email to the Christ Church membership. Wilson timed it so that everyone could identify Judas. About a week later the family resigned its membership.

After you read it, please set aside Wilson’s demented Messiah complex and file this under “A” for “Abuse.”

Controversy, Part 12
In our last installment, we considered the fact that the mere presence of controversy does not mean that something has “gone wrong.” Controversy is part of God’s pattern for the church; He tests us with such things to see if we will remain faithful to Him and to His Word. But at the same time, one of the reasons why controversy can be so gut-wrenching for us is that while “things” have not necessarily gone wrong, individual people certainly do go wrong. All things work together for good for those who love God and who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). But all things did not work together for good for Judas Iscariot, for Demas, for Alexander the coppersmith, for Ananias and Sapphira, for Hymenaeus and Philetus, or for Diotrephes. In the midst of controversy, people do shipwreck their faith, and their families are shattered through their disobedience.

Paul taught us that everyone who names the name of the Lord should depart from wickedness (2 Tim. 2:19), but as he did this, he was talking about controversy in his churches, led by men who were opposing his legitimate pastoral authority. And in this context, he also quoted Numbers 16:5 — “The Lord will show who are his.” So while those controversies were good for Israel, the Church, Moses, and Paul, they were not at all good for Korah and his many descendents [sic].

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

Thank you.

Self-awareness Level: Minus Zero and Falling

“This sort of thing must be handled by just, calm, deliberate, and honorable men. In short, not the kind of men who specialize in internet vituperation.” — Douglas Wilson (emphasis original)

Deception Is Reality

Anyone with access to Google can ascertain the facts regarding Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA with three clicks of the mouse. And just as easily you can obtain any number of opinions about the LAP case with as many clicks of the mouse as your index finger can tolerate. This brings us to poor Jon Barlow, who has lived happily in the land of DUMB for many years. Of course, DUMB stands for “Doug’s Universe of Make Believe,” which is a very real alternative universe to our own that is populated by countless monkey boys and their offspring whose sole purpose in life is to pay homage to their king — Douglas Wilson.

Unfortunately, most of the inhabitants of DUMB don’t know that only one physical law governs their universe — i.e., deception is reality — for without deception DUMB would spin wildly out of control into the blackness of darkness forever and all of its inhabitants would perish hopelessly in oblivion, having no reason to live. Consequently, the King of DUMB maintains the law of his universe with the utmost fidelity, regularly deceiving his citizens to insure that their lives remain happily uninterrupted. Indeed, the King of DUMB loves to deceive because he knows it brings such joy to his citizens.

Case in point: Steve Wilkins and the PCA. For months the King of DUMB has maintained consistently that the SJC has unlawfully tried Steve Wilkins without charges, testimony, witnesses, evidence, or process. To be sure, King Doug has described in vivid detail the evil doings of wicked men in the PCA who have conspired in the Back Room to pull all the levers hidden beneath their desks to screw Steve Wilkins to the uttermost. Indeed, King Doug believes that the PCA has violated so many principles of presbyterian polity that he recently declared, “Steve Wilkins is today’s Machen,” which is a stretch even for King Doug’s mentally ill imagination.

Making matters worse, many of King Doug’s court jesters have helped maintain DUMB’s solitary physical law by telling a few tall tales of their own. For example, Jeffrey Braveheart Meyers has deceived his followers into believing that the PCA instituted a Star Chamber and an Inquisition to torture confessions from PCA ministers who hold the Federal Vision. Pastor Braveheart even bore witness that the Inquisitors were ripping out the ecclesiastical entrails of certain Federal Visionists. It was really quite frightening, which brings us back to poor Jon.

Yesterday poor Jon wandered outside of DUMB’s borders to post a comment on Green Baggins in defense of the Federal Vision champion Steven Machen Wilkins. But poor Jon didn’t have his facts straight because he learned them from King Doug and his court jesters. So poor Jon, thinking that the PCA Inquisitors would soon draw and quarter Steven Machen Wilkins in the town square, mustered the courage to post a comment on Green Baggins, far away from the land of DUMB, hoping to alert the non-citizens of DUMB to this awful miscarriage of justice. He wrote,

Wilkins was never on trial, was he? I thought the LA Presbytery was conducting an inquiry to see if there was any good reason to put him on trial. A trial would consist of evidences, charges, prosecution, witnesses, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. I thought, in essence, that someone asked LA Presbytery to look into Wilkins. They conducted a friendly inquiry and said he was okay. Someone objected, the SJC said that the presbytery was lax procedurally, so they redid it with the proper procedure but came to a conclusion that was unacceptable both to the SJC and to a few LA Presbytery people. If Wilkins was on trial, can someone point me to the charges and the transcript of the witnesses, etc.?

Of course, Steven Machen Wilkins is not on trial and he never has been on trial, which probably explains why the post that generated poor Jon’s comment never states, hints, implies, or suggests that Steven Machen Wilkins was ever on trial. In fact, no one is on trial, not even Louisiana Presbytery, and anyone with access to Google should know this because the official record is posted all over the web. It states:

Amends — Pursuant to BCO 40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the case, which is designated as Case 2007-14; b) select Assistant Prosecutors from members of the General Assembly to assist him with this matter; c) draw an indictment to be served upon Louisiana Presbytery, with the circumstances and specifications therein not being limited to those raised in 2006-02 and 2007-8; d) prepare a citation instructing Louisiana Presbytery to respond, in writing or at a called meeting of the Standing Judicial Commission, to the indictment and to enter its plea to the matters contained therein not later than February 1, 2008. (BCO 40-6, 31-2, 32-3) If Louisiana Presbytery enters a plea of “not guilty,” then Louisiana Presbytery is directed to appear, through its representatives, for trial in this matter before the Standing Judicial Commission on March 5, 2008 (BCO 40-5, 40-6, 31-2, 32-3).

But the citizens of DUMB, such as poor Jon Barlow, don’t understand the record because it contradicts the utterances of their King, whose word is never wrong and whose decrees fail not. After all, he’s the King. Unfortunately, this leaves these sad souls in a constant state of confusion because they cannot reconcile their King’s word, which is grounded in fantasy, with the truth, which governs the real universe.

So I want to encourage poor Jon and his fellow citizens to abandon the land of DUMB and to join the rest of us who live in the real universe. This will require a good amount of humility and a greater amount of repentance, though this is a small price to possess your souls.

However, if they don’t forsake their wicked king and his evil empire, then they may take comfort knowing that that the God of all truth has arranged to preserve the land of DUMB and all its inhabitants in their preferred state of deception for all eternity, because Scripture says, “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10–12). And at that time deception shall be reality for those lost souls for ever and ever, amen.

Thank you.

Machen and Wilkins and Wilson and Me

After the PCA’s SJC announced its decisions regarding Louisiana Presbytery, Douglas Wilson wrote a post for his blog titled “Machen and Wilkins.” And I quote:

But those were liberals. We conservative Reformed Christians have all learned our Machen lessons, right? Not really. Nothing has changed. Steve would be embarrassed by me making this comparison, but Steve Wilkins is today’s Machen. He also is being railroaded (in the plain light of day). His presbytery vindicated him twice. No charges against him personally have ever been brought. The General Assembly appointed a study committee on the general topic that was so stacked it was falling out of its dress. They issued a series of declarations that another body, the Stacked Judicial Commission, is going to be using to determine if Steve’s presbytery ought to have cleared him in the way they have done. And when they have finalized their decision, there is no appeal. What a slick system! It’s not everybody that can get a conviction without a trial, and without the right of appeal. I bet the Assemblies of God don’t know how to do that. (“Machen and Wilkins”)

Now there are too many errors and downright misrepresentations in this single paragraph for me to waste time correcting (although I suggest the author familiarize himself with the facts of the case before he make any more ludicrous pronouncements). However, I do want to highlight one sentence of Wilson’s: “Steve would be embarrassed by me making this comparison, but Steve Wilkins is today’s Machen.”

I call this line to your attention for one simple reason, namely, I am embarrassed by Wilson making this comparison.

Thank you.

Wilson’s Blog Makes the Front Page

In the following front-page story from today’s Daily News, please notice Wilson’s quote, “city rules being used to attack Christ Church.” In plain English this means that citizens in the community have filed complaints against the illegal activities of Christ Church and the City has enforced its code, which Wilson interprets as an “attack.” Also notice that when Wilson says, “The monkeys are out of the cage,” he means that he has dispatched his monkey boys to create chaos.

Moscow City Council race: Passion, attacks escalate
Competing visions for Moscow become evident in final weeks of campaign
By Tara Roberts, Daily News staff writer

When Steve Busch ran for Moscow City Council years ago, it was simple. He signed up, found a treasurer and ran. “I think those days are gone,” Busch said. “It’s a lot of work, a lot of abuse, and one person can’t do it by themselves anymore.”

It seems candidates in Moscow now must have a group working for them, Busch said. For six of the seven candidates on Tuesday’s ballot, that group is either the Greater Moscow Alliance or the Moscow Civic Association.

Busch is the president of the GMA, which was established in 2006 to promote free enterprise and property rights. The GMA endorsed Dan Carscallen, Wayne Krauss and Walter Steed. The MCA was established in 2002 to work for progressive and sustainable communities. It endorsed Aaron Ament, Tom Lamar and Linda Pall. Evan Holmes is not endorsed by either.

This is the first City Council election with both groups involved. On newspaper opinion pages, online forums and city streets, discussion about the groups’ views and purposes — and what that means for the candidates they endorse — have sometimes become heated.

“I really enjoy seeing what happens in elections, and honestly I can’t remember one quite this angry or passionate or whatever you want to call it,” said B.J. Swanson, vice president of AmericanWest Bank in Moscow and chairwoman of the Gritman Medical Center board of directors. Swanson once paid dues to the MCA but said she has not been officially involved since. “It’s good to see people passionate, particularly about wanting to elect their representatives. On the other hand, it’s gotten kind of dirty, which I don’t like to see.”

To see harsh claims against candidates and groups, all a person has to do is look at local letters to the editor, Busch said. “There’s been some pretty sharp comments made,” Busch said. “I would say more on the opposing side than our side, but they probably say the same thing.”

MCA president Bruce Livingston said there has been “a drumbeat of letters to the editor” accusing the MCA of being no-growth and anti-business. Livingston disagrees with the accusations but doesn’t think the discussion is a bad thing. “I think it’s healthy to debate thoroughly and intensely these matters that are going to shape our community,” he said.

Busch agreed. He expects voter turnout to be higher than usual because heated debate surrounding the campaign has sparked peoples’ interest. “If that’s what it takes to get people interested in local politics . . . that’s probably a good thing,” he said. However, Bush and Livingston said the discussion shouldn’t turn into personal attacks.

Comments have turned personal on local online forums, including Dnews.com. Swanson said the anonymity offered online allows people to “say whatever they want to say in there,” which may not be good or helpful. On the other hand, she said, anonymous online posters can speak their minds without fear of retribution. Anonymity makes it easy for some people to be “as vile as they want,” Busch said. “You wouldn’t say that to them face to face.”

Livingston said the discussion has mostly been “heartfelt and passionate,” but the climate of the election took a negative turn in recent days. “The personal attacks on character and these charges of religious persecution are a different matter, and in that sense I think this election has sunk to a new low,” Livingston said.

Moscow’s Christ Church came to the forefront of the discussion Saturday, when Pastor Douglas Wilson posted a suggestion on his blog that people should vote against Ament, Lamar and Pall. On Monday, Christ Church member Dave Glasebrook carried a sign in downtown Moscow that read “Vote the Bigot Party, Ament, Lamar, Pall.” Every candidate, including those endorsed by the GMA, said they were not affiliated with Glasebrook’s protest.

Other voices on the Moscow political scene say otherwise, connecting Glasebrook’s protest to Wilson’s blog, and Wilson and Christ Church to the GMA. Bill London, an MCA member and frequent voice against Christ Church, said the debate stayed appropriately on issues, not personalities, until the blog and the sign. “At that point I think this election has slipped from the issues to the realm of divisive,” London said. “It’s clear in my mind that it can be laid directly at Wilson’s feet and should be.” London said the GMA and Christ Church are connected at Bob Hieronymus, NSA executive vice president and a GMA board member. “My view of the GMA candidates, especially Krauss and Carscallen, is that they were found, nurtured, promised money and support and told it would be a cake walk and we’ll get you on the council, which synced with their willingness to serve,” London said. “They made, in essence, a pact with the devil, I think.”

Glasebrook said his protest was religious, not political. He said Ament, Lamar and Pall were part of a history of harassment toward Christ Church and its affiliated organizations, including New St. Andrews College downtown. Wilson said he did not send Glasebrook to the street corner and the protest “is not (his) style,” but he too believes Christ Church has been unfairly targeted. After Glasebrook’s protest, Lamar came to talk with him, Wilson said. “I basically told Tom that we haven’t sent Dave on the mission . . . but what his sign said was true,” Wilson said. “I told him you have to pay attention to a broader story.” That story lies in city rules being used to attack Christ Church, Wilson said.

Complaints such as those regarding NSA’s location and boardinghouses where NSA students stay stem from people who want to hurt the church, he said. If council members don’t take the source of complaints into account, “then the City Council is going to be a cat’s paw for the people who are bigots.”

Wilson’s blog posting instructs readers that “the simplest rule of thumb is to vote for no incumbents,” listing Ament, Lamar and Pall. “They have been hip-deep in the antics of the last several years. . .” Wilson wrote. “True, Lamar is a recent addition, but if you combine his name with Ament’s, we get LAMENT, and I don’t think we can risk it.”

Wilson gave two lists of reasons not to vote for the incumbents, “first on the question of their religious bigotry,” then “about the council’s broader issues, and I am using the word issues in both senses.” Wilson said the statement against the incumbents “had to do with how you voted, not whether you were a reasonable human being or not,” he said. “It’s nothing personal.” Wilson said calling someone a bigot is personal, but pointing out bigotry is not. He said he did not want to simply say “vote for GMA candidates” because he does not believe Holmes is an “Intolerista” — Wilson’s word for intolerant secular liberals. Wilson said he’s not a member of the GMA. Wilson said his blog was “political in self-defense,” but “not political in the sense that we’re trying to take things over.” Those that don’t believe him should “do what Tom Lamar did,” Wilson said. “He came and talked to me. He came and asked. If you’re continuing to simply be spooked or freaked out based on what you hear about a group you don’t know anything about, that’s what bigotry is.” Wilson said the conflict between the GMA and MCA has created a two-party political system in Moscow. “Once things get polarized, it’s awfully hard to unpolarize them,” he said. “The monkeys are out of the cage.”

Livingston said there have been differences of viewpoint, but not partisanship. Other than the “bigot smear,” the campaign has been heated, but not divisive. “I still feel like I could sit down over a beer with Dan Carscallen and talk about this stuff amicably even though we disagree on issues,” he said.

Busch said the GMA and MCA definitely create a partisan feel with their different philosophies. The two can agree to disagree, but the split remains. “Moscow politics has become a full-contact sport,” he said. “If you’re going to run for office, you’d better have a thick skin and be ready to take some shots that aren’t justified.”

What Makes Sheep Self-detonate?

A local evangelical named Keely Emerine Mix offers these comments on the source of this lost sheep’s message of “religious bigotry.” She wrote it on the local listserv:

Visionaires,

I can’t help but comment on the irony of Moscow’s most well-known bigot calling for the defeat of City Council incumbents Ament, Lamar, and Pall on the basis of “religious bigotry.” One would expect that anyone as familiar with the practice of true bigotry as Christ Church Pastor Doug Wilson would hesitate to elevate mere neophytes to the masterful status he himself as reached, but his “Blog and Mablog” shamelessly instructs his Moscow readers to do the right thing simply by voting against the incumbents, who, Wilson says, deserve defeat because of their orchestrated campaign of unfair treatment of his flock.

Wilson is indeed a man of many contradictions. He denies that he is a racist, an unabashedly sexist patriarch, a virulent homophobe, and an unnecessarily divisive, bitter presence in our community, and yet consistently demonstrates more fluency in the language of bigotry than in the language of the Gospel. He is an affluent, powerful and greedy consumer of white, Calvinistic male privilege and all it offers, and nonetheless bleats the wailing lament of the truly persecuted when the marketplace of ideas rejects his. Appearance is everything to this Oxfordian pretender and hearty man of chest, and yet little of his public persona and behavior can be taken at face value. His blog is a proper venue for his political counsel; I couldn’t possibly care less if he preaches politics from his pulpit, as I understand Christ Church has chosen to not take advantage of the tax-exempt status afforded houses of worship. It’s not the platform from which he speaks that angers me. It’s the continued “running with scissors” approach to community engagement that I object to every time I see tales of woe cut from whole cloth while shards of truth flutter impotently to the ground. It seems not too much to ask that Moscow’s most well-known pastor simply deal with the issues head-on, acting with integrity and honor, and his position as well as the public nature of his Blog, even if intended for his followers only, requires that he avoid even the appearance of deception.

But deception often exists long before out-and-out lying ever makes an appearance. Counting on the desire of his flock to prove themselves worthy of his approval, and taking advantage of their belief in his unassailable wisdom coupled with a heavy dose of political naivete, Wilson exhorts his congregants and supporters to remember that all of the incumbents are anti-religious, anti-Kirk bullies. Families peppered with the demands of young children and busy schedules no doubt appreciate the helpful mnemonic he’s devised to help them remember the right way to vote. Simply combine “Lamar” with “Ament” and you get — oh, this is goooood! — “LAMENT.” (An aside — one wonders why he didn’t go whole hog here by suggesting that a liberal council would be a “PALL” on the City of Moscow . . . ). His helpful voter’s guide then lists several instances of “religious bigotry” that he insists spews forth from the incumbents. The list includes, of course, Aaron Ament’s regrettable “Education-free zone” and “Androids” comments regarding New St. Andrews, and then continues with the NSA-in-the-CBD boondoggle and a host of lesser-known offenses that together make a compelling case for a wholesale clean sweep in City Hall. That is, if they were founded in truth and integrity.

They’re not.

Wilson and I agree that Ament’s remarks were intemperate. “Poorly-chosen,” if you want to be polite. “Stupid,” if you don’t. Where Wilson and I part company — indeed, where he departs from the Biblical standard of bearing truthful witness — is in his delineation of the current Council’s alleged and intentional sins against the Gospel, or at least that part of it Wilson convinces his flock he represents. An example might be Wilson’s story of the Council’s insistence that NSA provide a specific number of parking spaces outside of the immediate CBD for students and staff. He knows that suggesting that “no other business” in the central business district suffers under such extreme hardship is disingenuous at best; no other business on Main Street, much less in the CBD adjacent to it, is comprised of nearly 200 staffers or students. Indeed, the assumption that schools can only function by attracting large numbers of students — numbers greater, say, than the number of ladies getting perms at the Plush Brush — is a key argument for why they ought not be permitted in major pedestrian-oriented retail zones. He insists that the foaming-at-the-mouth religious bigotry of Pall and Ament is what led to the removal from the CBD two years ago of the Atlas School for Boys. (Tom Lamar, who joined the council too recently for the Kirk to fully suffer from the flex of his anti-Christian muscle, would’ve been in on it all, too, Wilson supposes. This is because liberals are icky, mean-spirited haters of all that is good and decent; I’m paraphrasing, of course, and in doing so I’m likely granting Wilson too much). This experiment in under-the-radar, world-changing classical Christian education illegally, not to mention secretly, occupied part of the NuArt theater, a violation of code made more egregious not only by Wilson’s foreknowledge, but also by the safety risk posed to children studying in second-floor rooms not designed or outfitted as classrooms. Atlas and its supporters shrugged, but the City didn’t. Fire safety, occupancy loads, zoning, liability, access — these things aren’t the stuff of proper municipal oversight to Wilson. They’re simply the thorn in the side of good Christians everywhere who want only to educate their children as they see fit — the law be damned, it seems, as it would be in the most literal sense according to a Wilsonian eschatological and social worldview. And, of course, he makes much of the boarding houses vs. party houses debate that occupied much of Moscow’s summer, although it’s not really a debate, not “apples and oranges” as much as it is “spatulas and carburetors.” The boarding house prohibitions focused on the integrity of city code-protected neighborhoods; the party house issue speaks to the “public disturbance” aspect of living in community. Any overlap here is simply another bit of irony in an argument already dripping with it.

Wilson’s litany of complaints against the liberal incumbents is far too lengthy for me to fully analyze here, and I’d invite Visionaires to examine it on Blog and Mablog. Wilson’s appreciation and analysis of fiction is evident there in his disgust over the revelation that Harry Potter’s Dumbledore is into the “guy-on-guy” thing, but I’d remind the good pastor that something higher than civic honor requires that he correctly identify fiction from nonfiction in his political commentary. Dumbledore isn’t real; his “sins” make no difference whatsoever in any of our lives. Ament, Lamar, and Pall, on the other hand, are real, and leveling accusations of vehement religious bigotry against them is a kind of fiction that makes a great deal of difference in the lives of every one of us who call Moscow home.

keely

Oh, one more thing:

Wilson cites the denial of St. Mary’s Catholic School’s parking-expansion plans as another example of the anti-religious, liberal City Council bias that must be remedied with the defeat of Ament, Pall, and Lamar. It wasn’t, of course, but what’s really important here is that two of the three “liberal incumbents” weren’t even on the Council then. Pall was; Ament and Lamar weren’t. Certainly Mr. Wilson wouldn’t misrepresent their records, and so I’m eager to see what form his acknowledgment of error takes. And if I’ve made a factual error in this or any other post, please let me know — publicly and immediately, and I’ll correct it that same way.

And thanks to GFR for the reminder/info on St. Mary’s — she gets the credit for remembering the details.

keely

“And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings” (Hosea 4:9).

Thank you.

Federal Question for Mike Lawyer

A couple of days ago Mike Lawyer commented here that the Federal Vision covenant breakers in the PCA have broken their vows because the findings of the 35th General Assembly of the PCA were “errant.”

Given Lawyer’s supposition, I wonder if Wilson’s monkey boy would explain to us why Peter Leithart honored his vow by informing his presbytery of his differences with the Westminster Standards.

Thank you.

Update From the Land of DUMB

After accusing multiple men of false witness (without evidence), Douglas Wilson took a moment out of his busy blogging schedule to divine the mind of Lane Keister, writing,

Lane, just for the record, I was talking about the list of men you named, many of whom have misrepresented me. I was not talking about you — I believe that you have labored to understand what I am saying. You are an Elihu among the FV critics, exasperated by the way the argument from the older guys is staggering along, and quite decently pretending not to be exasperated.

Remarkably, he wrote this despite this affirmation from Lane:

Secondly, would Wilson really say that there has been no debate on these issues? Or does each denomination have to spend 40 or 50 years hashing it out with every single FV advocate? What was the Knox Colloquium and the thousands upon thousands of emails exchanged surrounding that Colloquium? Please don’t tell me that was just shooting the breeze. If the FV cannot be legitimately clarified by such debate, then exactly how helpful is it for the Church? Also, I fervently hope that the FV is not here assuming that their blogs have not been read by the critics. Because that would be a really, really stupid thing to say. The difficulty here is that (for both sides) open debate (unlike Knox) has invariably produced much more heat than light.

Memo to Lane:
You have to do a better job hiding your exasperation. It’s not a good idea to let Wilson and his fellow Federal Visionists see your frustration with the “older guys.” You give too much away.

PS: “DUMB” stands for “Doug’s Universe of Make Believe.” Read more here.

Thank you.

Fat as Grease

Douglas Wilson’s personal assistant Mike Lawyer (who is also an elder at Christ Church) has commented here, which I cut and pasted below, to explain why the Federal Visionist covenant breakers in the CREC have not called upon their fellow covenant breakers in the PCA to keep their vows and honor their baptisms. Lawyer’s explanation may also explain why the PCA covenant breakers have refused to fulfill their obligation to inform their presbyteries that their doctrinal views are out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Lawyer wrote,

The answer to your question is that none of the FV proponents who are members of the PCA are out of step with the Westminster Confession. Steve Wilkins has been examined twice and Peter Leithart has been examined at least once. The truth is that the finding of the GA was in error. . . . The PCA GA needs to go back and re-examine their errant findings and start all over. (emphasis added)

Therefore, when the PCA GA adopted — by an overwhelming majority — the ad interim committee’s report affirming this statement:

That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

Mike Lawyer unilaterally declared the findings of the 35th General Assembly of the PCA “errant.” He may call himself “Fat Souls,” but other texts come to mind — “They are inclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly. . . . Their heart is as fat as grease.” (Ps. 17:10; 119:70).

You said:

I wonder why CREC founder Douglas Wilson has not berated his fellow Federal Visionists in the PCA for “despising their baptism the way they do!” Indeed, I wonder why CREC moderator Randy Booth has not called upon the PCA to honor the baptisms of his fellow Federal Visionists in the PCA by excommunicating them from the Church for covenant breaking? These inquiries are fair enough given how much the Federal Visionists hector us about “covenant keeping.”

The answer to your question is that none of the FV proponents who are members of the PCA are out of step with the Westminster Confession. Steve Wilkins has been examined twice and Peter Leithart has been examined at least once. The truth is that the finding of the GA was in error.

There is no need to “excommunicate” those who are not in error. The PCA GA needs to go back and re-examine their errant findings and start all over.

Thank you.

Some People Laugh While Others Don’t Cry

Earlier this week at the dinner table I read this exchange to my family and when I got to Pastor Hutchison’s question, “Did anybody else read my comment #6 above to be teaching any (or all!) of these things? I can’t imagine that anybody else did,” my wife shot milk out her nostrils — “And what did he expect?”

This brings me to Green Baggins’ analysis of Wilson’s interpretation of Pastor Hutchison’s comments. Lane says that Wilson committed the “word-concept fallacy,” but I think this is an example of Lane applying generous portions of the judgment of charity instead of sound logic. Most folks who’ve ever called Wilson to account, as Pastor Hutchison did in this instance, know that he relies on distortion, misrepresentation, and deceit to stand his ground. And he deploys these rhetorical tools without compunction.

Put another way, for him to commit false witness is tantamount to spilled milk — no use crying over it.

Federal Flashback

A couple of years ago R.C. Sproul made the mistake of inviting Douglas Wilson to speak at the Ligonier big jamboree. Of course this was less than a year after the RPCUS unanimously adopted its resolution, not “charges,” declaring the Monroe Four heretics (whatever else is true, the RPCUS got the ball rolling and essentially every Reformed denomination has followed in their footsteps to one degree or other).

After the conference ended, Wilson sent the following email to the Christ Church membership, to assure them that his Reformed bona fides were still intact and that he “got along famously” with all the major players. Please note, however, that whenever there’s bad news for Wilson in the Reformed world, such as this summer’s PCA General Assembly disaster, the master of PR never notifies the congregation (most of whom are too busy or ignorant to follow these events closely). Regardless, I wonder how many of these names Wilson could drop today as men who share his convictions.

From: Christ Church
Date: Monday, March 17, 2003, 9:03 AM
To: christkirk@moscow.com
Subject: Conference

Dear kirkers,

Thank you for praying for the trip to Orlando, and thanks to the many people at church yesterday who asked about the conference there — with particular reference to the implications for the heresy charges of the RPCUS. The trip was greatly blessed in a number of ways, but I just wanted itemize some of the answers to prayer with regard to this issue.

1. The conference was a great conference in its own right. The other speakers — RC Sr. & Jr. John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, Al Mohler — gave outstanding talks. I believe there were about 4,000 people there. It was hard to tell.


2. In my talk I had the opportunity to make a passing reference to the controversy, in order to affirm my commitment to sola fide, and to urge some Presbyterians to do what the pagan magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker do (in their employment of fact-checkers to review articles) before they go into print.


3. This caused the subject to come up in the Q & A, and I was able to summarize how off base the charges had been. One gentleman from Ligonier told us that they had gotten quite a number of emails about my appearance there, and they would now be able to simply say, “Get the tape.”


4. Behind the scenes, there was no tension or weirdness from the other speakers. We all got along famously.


5. Some time ago I had been asked to contribute to a festschrift for RC Sproul Sr. The book was a surprise to him, and was presented to him at the conference. The book is entitled After Darkness Light, and is subtitled Distinctives of Reformed Thought. The book is structure around the five solas of the Reformation and the five points of Calvinism. I contributed the chapter on Irresistible Grace. Other contributors included Michael Horton, Robert Godfrey, Jay Adams, Keith Mathison, Sinclair Ferguson, John MacArthur, O. Palmer Robertson, et al. Given the nature and subject of the book, and even with the differences between the contributors (which are not insignificant), it is now going to be very difficult to charge us here at Christ Church with being outside the Reformed pale.


6. The end result of all this, it appears to me, is that the charges of the RPCUS, marginal from the beginning, are now way out on the periphery. This does not mean controversy will disappear — it looks to be taking other forms in other places — but I do think it means that the attempt to settle the issues by means of a papal fiat from a tiny denomination in the South is an attempt that has failed.

We still have a lot of work to do, but it is work from within the Reformed world.

Thanks again for your prayers,

Cordially in Christ,

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

Thank you.

Federal Savior

Douglas Wilson just commented on Green Baggins that “he tries hard not to take himself seriously.” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know how to reconcile that with his stated goal of goal of “trying to save civilization” (The New York Times Magazine).

John Owen: Federal Visionist — NOT!

The lead Federal Visionist recently declared, “I don’t believe, just as John Owen didn’t believe, that denial of it [Imputation of Active Obedience of Christ] amounts to a denial of the gospel.”

From what I can tell, he made his declaration based upon this post, which he claimed “demolishes” the assumption that Owen held IAOC as “a sine qua non of Reformed orthodoxy concerning justification.”

But if you read the post, you’ll see that the author lifted 166 words from one of Owen’s massive, small-print volumes and asserted — ex cathedra — that Owen softened his view of IAOC as he grew older, and since Owen didn’t contend for it in that sound bite taken from later in his life, “he’s saying it doesn’t delimit Reformed orthodoxy.” Now that’s a stretch even by FV standards. Failure to argue a point is not tantamount to affirming its opposite. I think. Furthermore, I noticed that the author imputed context to Owen’s quote that quite simply isn’t there, i.e. that Owen had sat down to delineate the sine qua non of Reformed orthodoxy concerning justification.

This brings us to Pastor Danny Hyde, who recently posted an extended citation from a letter written by Owen vigorously contending for IAOC. Common sense forces me to conclude that since John Owen defended IAOC, he held it. But you’ll notice that Pastor Hyde didn’t jump to ridiculous conclusions based upon one citation. It speaks for itself.

Finally, I want to leave with a word of wisdom for Dr. R. Scott Clark, who recently advanced a compelling argument for the non-existence for air:

I renounce air. I don’t believe in it. I mean, c’mon, who has ever actually seen air? Sure I’m breathing but so what? What does that prove? I choose not to believe in air because, hey, I don’t have to and you can’t make me. Nah nah nah nah boo boo!

Dr. Clark, please, with all due respect, don’t hold your breath.

Thank you.

Memory Loss

Okay, last post on the “humiliating typo,” but this one’s for the record or perhaps the record books.

On August 10, 2007, Douglas Wilson affirmed, “I am astonished that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that passage from RINE has come up in this debate.” But a quick Google search shows that just five days earlier on Green Baggins, Sean Gerety shared that exact quote with Wilson. Mr. Gerety also cited it on the Puritan Board last year.

Now, I know that for some the judgment of charity would say that Mr. Wilson was “too humiliated” to admit his “typo” on these other occasions. However, I look at it another way. These facts lead me to suggest that Mr. Wilson’s short-term memory loss is due primarily to chronic brain damage caused by habitual lying.

Thank you.

“Humiliating Typo”

Here is the quote, taken in its entire context, where Douglas Wilson claims the omission of the word “not” was a “humiliating typo”:

Nonelect covenant members who look to themselves for their salvation receive great condemnation. They receive this condemnation because they are covenant breakers. But breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works. One problem in our contemporary debate is caused by those who assume that if we say the new covenant can even have covenant breakers, then these covenant breakers must have failed through lack of works. But when Paul tells the Roman Christians that they could fall away just like the Jews, he also tells them why that would happen. They fell because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Of course, when there is a lack of faith there is also a lack of works. And when a living faith is present, so are the good works which God prepared beforehand for us to do (Eph. 2:10). (Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003] page 134, emphasis original)

From a literary point of view, this paragraph makes perfect sense just as the author wrote it because the last two sentences affirm the direct connection between faith and works in salvation. But then again, I can see how leaving it as the author wrote it would create some theological issues.

I suggest that the author spend a little more time proofreading. In fact, maybe he could concentrate on furnishing some good works as well.

Score One for the Hammer

Two or three months ago, Dean Bekkering posted the following comment on Green Baggins,

What is meant by covenantal loyalty?

Doug Wilson: “Those who obligate themselves under the terms of the covenant law to live by faith but then defiantly refuse to believe are cut away . . . breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works.” “Reformed” Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant (134).

Any comments?
Dean B

Doug Wilson jumped on Dean’s question with this remarkable answer:

Dean B. — I am astonished that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that passage from RINE has come up in this debate. I noticed it a year or so ago when I read through RINE again for some reason. There is a humiliating typo there — “and because of lack of good works” should read “and not because of lack of good works.” My mistake. The way it reads now would present serious problems.

Wilson’s answer, however, immediately caught the attention of two men. First, Sean Gerety,

Doug Wilson writes:

Dean B. — I am astonished that (to my knowledge) this is the first time that passage from RINE has come up in this debate. I noticed it a year or so ago when I read through RINE again for some reason. There is a humiliating typo there — “and because of lack of good works” should read “and not because of lack of good works.” My mistake. The way it reads now would present serious problems.

You claiming to be astonished is astonishing.

In our reply to RINE Dr. Robbins and I cited and commented on this exact passage and nowhere in your review of our book did you once claim your statement was a “humiliating typo.” You took no responsibility for it at all and instead attacked your critics. Not only that, I recently cited this very passage in RINE again here and you made absolutely no mention of any “typo” at all, much less a “humiliating typo,” but instead ridiculed me for not understanding the fundamentals of the faith.

Could it be that this “humiliating typo” is really just an embarrassing assertion which you are now just trying to excuse?

So are your words in RINE a serious problem or not? It seems to me that your original wording which you just realized was in serious error (in spite of your critics bringing this very passage to your attention in the past and on more than one occasion) comports very well with your notion of a conditional covenant which is entered into at baptism and where ongoing faithfulness to “the demands of the covenant” is a prerequisite to “final justification.” Are you going to correct these “serious problems” as well? FWIW I don’t think calling your whole book a typo will work.

So, how are you planning to warn your many readers of RINE about this serious problem and all those who have bought into and have defended the works righteousness you so clearly taught in RINE even as a result of this “typo”?

And, second, Pastor Gary Johnson added to Mr. Gerety’s testimony with these words:

Sean,

I brought this to Doug’s attention shortly after the book RINE came out and got no response.

Which brings us to an exchange earlier today, when Douglas Wilson suddenly felt a compulsion to answer Mr. Gerety, or at least he left that impression, writing,

Sorry to highjack the discussion, but if Sean Gerety is reading this, it has been brought to my attention that I have not yet replied to your assertions about the typo in RINE. You said that you had addressed that in your book — but I can’t find it. Can you give me a page number?

Mr. Gerety, of God’s Hammer, answered Wilson in a heartbeat:

Page 126:

“In Wilson’s scheme, “breaking covenant occurs because of unbelief, lack of faith, and because of lack of good works” (134), and fulfilling the conditions of the covenant occurs by faith and good works.”

Would it be charitable to presume there are many other “humiliating typos” since the above is hardly the only place where you teach salvation by faith and good works?

You should also talk to Pastor Johnson above since he too said he brought this same quote to your attention, I believe he said immediately after your book was first published the book, but you never said anything about it being a typo.

Besides, I provided the same citation in response to you on this blog on at least one occasion in the recent past and you never said anything about it being a “humiliating typo” that you miraculously discovered “over a year ago.”

Not surprising, whoever proofed your book didn’t catch it either since it is hardly out of place per the rest of your teaching on justification and the covenant.

Anyway, please share your response with John and I once you’ve come up with one. Oh, and, BTW, yours is still my favorite review by far.

Of course, Wilson did not answer Mr. Gerety, because he could not answer him. If you do a word search on either “Gerety” or “Robbins” on Wilson’s blog, you will discover that he stopped reviewing Not Reformed At All on page 116, exactly 10 pages before Robbins and Gerety discussed Wilson’s “humiliating typo.”

Of course, these things don’t matter because I don’t believe it was a “typo” anymore than I believe Wilson feels humiliation.