A Book Review

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

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

Blasphemy
By A Customer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HT: Mary Louise

Thank you.

Eyewitness Testimony

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

Rosemary Huskey said . . .

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

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

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

Rose Huskey

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

Thank you.

A Labor of Love

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

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

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

Take a few minutes to read A Labor of Love.

Thank you.

Another Context

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

Anonymous said . . .

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

Mark T. said . . .

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

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

Anonymous said . . .

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

Mark T. said . . .

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

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



Thank you.

“Let Them Alone”

This is a follow-up to Patrick Poole’s post “R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ” and it’s more groundwork for a post I’m drafting. I hope you find it helpful.

Everyone recalls how, for about a year or so, Doug Wilson endeavored with all his might to disrupt the PCA’s disciplinary process as it applied to Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Whether raging confident about a “stacked committee” or stirring up strife over a “strong presumption of guilt” or breathing out threats and slaughter when it appeared inevitable that Steve Wilkins would face trial — Beelzeblog established Solomon’s words — “A fool lays open his folly.”

Of course, none of these canards really meant anything to Wilson. He certainly didn’t believe them and it’s not as though he tried to raise honest concerns in an honorable way. Not at all. It was obvious from the beginning that he wanted to knock the process off balance because he knew, as everyone else knew, that neither Wilkins nor any other Federal Visionists could harmonize their theology with Westminster. So he blew the first thing that came to his head and prosecuted the point, however absurd, until he could create more handles by blowing harder. And he creates these handles — these talking points — to give his disciples — those “dumb” folks who will follow him to the ends of the Earth and beyond — something to grasp. Just think of it as doug-opiate for the masses.

At this point I hear all the monkey boys in the land of DUMB screech from their cyber trees — “See, you’re slandering again; you don’t know he doesn’t believe these things! Of course he believes it or else he wouldn’t say it!” But in objecting to the obvious they only prove John Piper’s observation. I honestly cannot understand why no one thought to ask the Fearless Leader why the leaders of the Kult ever put someone on trial. Hello. They put folks on trial in the Kult because they established a strong presumption of guilt, at least by their standard. Well, that’ not true. They put folks on trial in the Kult so that they can point to the show trial to justify the public execution. Trials in the Kult are mere formalities — table dressing for the execution, but that’s grist for another post. Obviously they impute a strong presumption of guilt to the accused before they try them — why else would they try them? You don’t think they hold trials because they presume innocence on the part of the accused, do you? And they certainly don’t have to worry about stacking the jury — the Fearless Leader has already told the elders how to vote, and unfortunately no witnesses are present to do their imitation of John Madden with his Xs and Os and all. They declare the accused guilty of crimes against whatever after an unfair and partial trial (think Jezebel setting up Naboth) and duly execute him before a multitude of witnesses.

Consequently we know that Dougzilla threw monkey clumps and banana peels at the PCA strictly for entertainment purposes. The big gorilla was having fun at the PCA’s expense while simultaneously giving his disciples something to believe — no matter how ridiculous or implausible. And the whole point of this exercise was to run interference for Wilkins (who vowed to uphold the PCA’s form of government) by creating doubt and confusion. Mark that: in the end Wilson’s primary objective was to defend Wilkins by discrediting the PCA. For him, Sin covers a multitude of scoundrels and in the end Wilkins landed in the CREC without a hitch.

Anyone who can think critically knows this is true, but Wilson and the CREC have furnished us with a test case to establish these facts another way: Enter RC Sproul Jr and his three elders — the St. Peter Four. Those of you unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of this case should read Patrick Poole’s brilliant post “R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ” so that you may begin to comprehend the staggering enormity of these men’s sin.

On January 26, 2006, the RPCGA issued a Declaratory Judgment against the St. Peter Four for a catalog of crimes against the Lord Jesus Christ that is as long as it is shocking. There are not words in the human tongue strong enough to condemn these thugs for the unconscionably wicked, deceitful, and abusive measures they exacted against God’s saints and even now I am at a complete loss to describe it. This may explain why the Declaratory Judgment concludes, stating:

In view of the request made by Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. and given the authority of this office by the Elders of Westminster Presbytery, the following ruling is hereby issued. Considering the pattern of behavior noted above, the Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church has proven to be irresponsible in their duties as ministers of the Gospel. They have proven they are not men under authority of this denomination because they are continually acting outside of the Book of Church Order. Their actions, in matters of writing, teaching, articles on their web site, and practice, in each of the issues above demonstrate that they have no interest in preserving the peace, purity, and unity of the Church and its order, which includes conforming all their actions to the requirements thereof. Therefore, in order to protect the Church of Jesus Christ from any further damage and humiliation (WCF 20:4), the Moderator hereby declares the following declaration by the authority vested in this office and the expressed support of the Elders of Westminster Presbytery to carryout their will in these matters.

Judicial Action: Deposition from Office
The Moderator, by the authority of the Elders of Westminster Presbytery, herein deposes from the office of Elder, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Mr. Laurence Windham, Mr. Wayne Hayes and Mr. Jay Barfield and dismisses them to the general membership of Westminster Presbytery. They are to be held for trial pending additional charges, both public and personal, that are currently being investigated. 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, 10, 11)

Sobering words. No, more than that. An indictment this damning that the respondents substantiated with unqualified confessions should move everyone to cover their mouths in dread. Face it: the RPCGA had no choice but to pull the trigger on these brute beasts, and if the St. Peter Four had had any spiritual life in them they would have fallen on their faces in fear and trembling. They would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, pleading for forgiveness from everyone they abused and making restitution to them, as true servants, for the rest of their lives. This veritable Rolodex of offenses — which they freely owned as the fruit of their ministry — should not make a man consider his call to the ministry — it should make him consider his relationship to God. (Yes, you must be born again to see the kingdom of God.) After all, a minister cannot be a wolf and a sheep at the same time and true Christians don’t earn livings persecuting the brethren.

Enter Beelzeblog and the CREC. The laundry list of felonies and misdemeanors in the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment is kid’s play for the CREC — it’s the stuff of April Fools’ Day jokes. Therefore, less than a month after (much sooner if you have any street smarts) the RPCGA deposed the St. Peter Four, the CREC set in motion the wheels of ecclesiastical corruption to refrock these defrocked degenerates. Never mind the words “in order to protect the Church of Jesus Christ from any further damage and humiliation.” The Fearless Leader knew they were a perfect fit for the CREC when he read, “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.” Crooks, knaves, fools — all of them.

But there’s one particularly aggravating circumstance in the CREC’s handling of the St. Peter Four when compared with their handling of Steve Wilkins that you need to see. When the CREC positioned itself to abrogate the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and refrock the St. Peter Four, they (Wilson) had Sister Randy Booth issue a public statement calling on everyone to butt out of the whitewashing process:

The RPCGA has deposed the former session of St. Peter from office and has also released both the St. Peter congregation and her former session from RPCGA membership without censure. . . . The RPCGA has not precluded the possibility that some or all of the St. Peter session might be reinstated to office in the future, provided they go through the normal credentialing process. That is not to say that reinstatement is a forgone conclusion, only that the judgment of the RPCGA does not necessarily call for their permanent exclusion from office. . . . Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters. (“RE: Saint Peter Presbyterian Church in Bristol, TN,”)

These guys really know how to pile the baloney. Stack it high, baby — high and tight. Look at their super-sanctimonious posturing. Such equitable language, such righteous indignation, such holy zeal for the truth — O let all the Earth keep silent, the CREC hath spoken. The only problem is that while this band of rogues in the CREC had absolutely no authority to sit in judgment of the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment, let alone reinstate the St. Peter Four, they demanded the very courtesy of the entire Christian church that they refused to show to the PCA in the Wilkins’ case. And don’t forget that the PCA actually had standing over Wilkins. Oh, I know, the PCA deserved it. After all, the Fearless Leader decreed it. Doug said it. I believe it. That settles it. But this does not remove the stain of hypocrisy from their actions. Rather, it reveals it.

Douglas Wilson taunted and harassed the PCA with obnoxious tirades and petulant tantrums while that communion pursued peace and purity in decency and order. And when the PCA’s disciplinary process finally isolated that rancid scoundrel Steve Wilkins for trial, Wilson and the CREC snatched him from the jaws of accountability under cover of night. But the point is that their MO was just the opposite with the St. Peter Four. In that instance they blew off the Declaratory Judgment as if the devastating facts against those hoodlums carried no weight and stared down anyone who dared question their actions. In fact, they preempted criticism with a blanket condemnation of all objections in advance. But where were the preemptory denouncements in the Wilkins’ case? Where were Randy Booth and his fellow CREC confederates when Beelzeblog relentlessly attacked the PCA for the last year? I didn’t hear any of them say,

Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters.

I didn’t see any of them posture in their long flowing robes or flash a collar like a badge. All I heard were the Fearless Leader’s cheerleaders shout hurrah as they waved their pom-poms on the sidelines.

Pharisaical hypocrites — all of them — they say one thing while they do another. They’re dissemblers of the worst order, using pious spin when they refrocked the St. Peter Four and equally pious spin when they attacked the PCA — except they spun it the other way, turning their high and holy standard upside down.

The CREC confederates are like toilets at a rest stop; their porcelain appears pure and white on the outside. To be sure, some of them even have scent bars. But when you lift the cover, look out. The raw-sewage version of Big Foot jumps at you. IT’S ALIVE! You can flush and plunge all day long but he won’t go away. In fact, he keeps growing because an endless supply of waste — starting with Randy Booth and all the other CREC dignitaries — feeds him from the depths. His only purpose in life is to rot, fester, and stink up the joint, world without end, unless, that is, you call his flaming hypocrisy good fruit. And there’s no getting rid of him because the CREC confederates love to have it so.

The CREC deserves RC Sproul Jr and his three pet reptiles for the same reason they deserve Steve Wilkins, Burke Shade, Randy Booth, and all the other rebels against the kingdom of God that Douglas Wilson has gathered unto himself. But this doesn’t mean the Christian church deserves them. No, there’s no reason the Church should receive back the filth it cast out. In fact, we have every reason and all the incentive you could imagine to obey the command of our Lord regarding these Pharisees: “Let them alone” (Matt. 15:14).

Thank you.

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

Above the Law

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 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.” — Romans 13:1–7

Yesterday we saw the Fearless Leader quote Romans 13 to suggest that the Kult had cooperated with the police during their investigation of his April Fools’ Day prank, which they did not. Today, I have a question: If the Fearless Leader really wanted to obey Romans 13, why would he instruct a toady to steal a letterhead from the University of Idaho?

That’s a fair question when you think about it, but it raises another question: Why would the Great Protector instruct anyone to steal anything? Isn’t there a commandment prohibiting theft?

The only answer to these questions that I can surmise is that Doug Wilson sees himself as above the law — God’s and man’s — which probably accounts for his gloating in Credenda Agenda. I know, I know, it was a prank. I’m sure that justifies it some minds. Besides, everyone loves a good boob joke, don’t they? They sure worked ’em in on the whole “stacked committee” thing.

Regardless, these considerations raise another question: Does the Fearless Leader see himself above the law at all times? or does he see himself above the law on one specially designated day per year — the one they named in his honor?

I suspect the answer to this question is self-evident, but for those of you who have to think twice about it, take a tip from me: Think Al Capone.

Thank you.

PS: Doug Jones’ “humorless” defense is laughable. They’re all a bunch of nutjobs.

April Fool

“The folly of fools is deceit.” — Proverbs 14:8

I would be remiss if I let this day pass without noting its high spiritual import to the fool-mongers of the Kult. Indeed, April Fools’ Day stands head and shoulders above all the other days on the Kult calendar. As one person said, in terms of significance, it’s like their Day of Atonement. It probably carries as much weight to them calendar-wise as baptism does sacrament-wise, if that makes sense. However, since I don’t have much time, I will limit myself to documenting two of the more notorious April Fools’ Days in Kult lore.

The first and probably most offensive April Fools’ Day that I want to call to your attention was April 1, 1999, when the Kult leadership executed an incredibly well-devised prank to fool the entire Palouse, including all of the University of Idaho, into believing that the University was holding a lecture series on toplessness, which would be delivered by topless feminist scholars.

Here’s how the Fearless Leader told the story in Credenda Agenda:

By the time you receive this, our local police will probably have forgotten all about it, so a little bragging is now safe, and perhaps it is even in order. But first some background. Our local city council, through a series of ridiculous circumstances, decided to quit restricting female toplessness. The noble senior editor of this journal, encouraged by some winks and nudges from me, not that he needed any, made up a flyer which announced a topless and proud lecture series by topless feminist scholars. The titles of the talks were the typical postmodern hoohah — “Topless Shadows: A Personal Narrative,” “Destabilizing the Topless/Bottomless Duality,” “Breasts as Embodied Intuitions,” you get the drift. Some of our stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking, papered the university with these flyers, and the next morning a bunch of them were faxed all over campus. Now you know that we live in sad days, days when satire is increasingly difficult, and almost impossible. The radio station announced the lectures all day, an instructor out of the women’s center announced the lectures to a class, and the English department (listed on the flyer as sponsor) called the announced location to find out if they were in fact going on.

Well, some authorities at the University of Idaho went sideways, and had the cops out looking for the culprits. When they demanded to see the film from the security cameras at Kinko’s (whence the faxes had been sent), our noble editor contacted the established authorities (Rom. 13), who told him it wasn’t funny. He responded that on the contrary it was, and the next day gave out a press release on how the university was trying to repress the true, the good and the lovely.

Needless to say, lots of people showed up for the non-event, and all this happened on April 1. All in all, it was a bad day for the tight-lipped fundamentalists of the left. (Credenda Agenda, Volume 11 number 3)

Please make careful note of the dougspeak in this narrative: “Some of our stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking, papered the university with these flyers, and the next morning a bunch of them were faxed all over campus.” This really means that a member of the Kult stole a UI letterhead from the Vice President of the University of Idaho so that someone from the Kult could forge a memo announcing the topless lecture series. We know this from the police report, which you can read here on dougsplotch. Moreover, the “stalwart young Christian men, majoring in Christian culture and skylarking” were NSA students, which should remove all doubt about the corrupting influence of Doug Wilson.

You should also notice the way he describes the police investigation, how he leaves the false impression that the Kult cooperated with the police pursuant to Romans 13, which was not the case. The manager of Kinkos was a deacon in the Kult (now he’s a CREC pastor) and he stonewalled the police, refusing to let them see the surveillance tapes. No one that I know knows anything about the “press release on how the university was trying to repress the true, the good and the lovely.” The Lewiston Morning Trib (below), however, reported a press release that threatened a subpoena if Kinkos didn’t cooperate. If you read between the lines, that’s when the Kult leaders stopped laughing and began wetting their pants, which the Fearless Leader doesn’t mention either.

All in all, it was another bad day for the gospel, sponsored, of course, by those irresponsible fatheads of Christ Church, Moscow.



The second April Fools’ Day of Kult lore that I want to call to your attention was April 1, 2005, which was exactly 20 days after Douglas Wilson discovered that a serial pedophile had ravaged the lambs of his flock for the past 18 months. This fact alone should have been cause to lay off the fool’s play and take life a little more seriously. Not so for the Fearless Leader. Life is one big lying joke to him. Here is his blog post from that day:

Big News Topic: Current Events
Now that the papers are all signed, and my attorney says that there is nothing that can be done about it, I suppose this would be a good time to announce that through the generous help of a third party my wife and I have bought the Moscow Food Coop. For me to have been involved in the negotiations publicly would have been obviously counterproductive, but now that the deal is done, I think there is no longer any sense in being coy. At the same time, despite local politics, I want to assure all the regular Food Coop customers that there is absolutely no intention of selling the Coop’s new downtown location to Christ Church, or of diminishing in any way the quality of service that our customers have come to expect.

To understand this, you have to know that Wilson covets all the downtown property in Moscow and the Moscow Food Coop sits smack dab in the middle of downtown, like a hub. Wilson has coveted it for years. Moreover, you can’t go in the Coop without rubbing shoulders with a hippie, which is the exact opposite crowd that attends the Kult. I think it’s safe to say that Wilson despises them as much or more than anyone in the PCA. So he makes this stupid announcement on his blog, knowing that many of the locals keep tabs on him. He was making fun of the climate of fear that he cultivated, which is not funny if he’s after your property.

Local freelance reporter and Coop board member (I think) Bill London posted this to Vision 2020 in response to Wilson:

Doug Wilson, that funny guy, is at it again.

His April Fools joke this year is posted at his website (www.dougwils.com) today (see below). He claims in this post to have purchased the Moscow Food Co-op. The Co-op is owned by its 3,500 members, not some shadowy multinational corporation he guided to a corporate takeover. Doug is not a Co-op member, so he doesn’t even own a tiny portion of the Co-op. It’s just his attempt at “funny.”

I would like to remind Doug that there are two kinds of funny. Funny as in “hah, hah, good joke” and funny as in quite peculiar. He’s sliding well into the peculiar category with this one.

BL

“Funny as in quite peculiar”: Bill nailed it. Think about it: At that time Douglas Wilson had no idea how many lambs Steven Sitler had raped (and he still does not know this), but he had time to play a practical joke on the community. At that time Wilson had not notified his flock of predation (and he still has not warned his flock of predation), but he had time to for foolishness. And presumably, at that time Wilson had not yet completed his six counseling sessions with the serial pedophile whereby he declared him repentant and ready to return to society. But Wilson knew the community didn’t trust him and was suspicious of his land grabbing, so he played off that fear as a joke.

Frankly, Bill London understated it (as is his style). This April Fools’ Day joke was “peculiar” before anyone knew about Steven Sitler, simply because it constituted yet more antagonism from a professed gospel minister against the community. Now that we know about Steven Sitler’s horrifying crimes and Wilson’s unconscionable dereliction of duty, this joke is downright sick.

He may think it funny, just as he got a hoot out of his “topless and proud” gag. But I know this much: none of the victims laughed that day, if they kept abreast of the bilge from Blog and Mablog. No, I’m certain that none of those families in Moscow, Colville, or Virginia yucked it up with the Fearless Leader — “Happy April Fools’ Day, Pastor! By the way, when you get a minute from your busy blogging schedule, can you please tell me what to do about my two-year-old daughter?” And I know God was not pleased either.

But I take comfort knowing that the Lord has not precluded fools from reaping what they sow, which means that one day the Fearless Leader shall face a harvest of unprecedented proportions, because Scripture says,

Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.

Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the LORD,

They would have none of my counsel
And despised my every rebuke.
Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
And be filled to the full with their own fancies. — Proverbs 1:24–31

Thank you.

Memory Lane, or First Impressions

You can’t host a fully documented anonymous attack blog (FDAAB) unless you’re an information hog, and since I host an FDAAB, I am an information hog. And one of the benefits of hogging information in the age of cyberspace is that sometimes you capture data that eventually gets lost.

For example, last year I grabbed the comment thread to Dr. Clark’s post “(Reformed) Christianity and (Quasi-Reformed) Revisionism” (which everyone really should read) because I believed that one day it may prove helpful, which it’s a good thing because you’ll notice that the comment-counter to the post states “READER COMMENTS 123,” whereas you’ll also notice that there’s only 20 comments to the thread. Cyberspace has black holes too.

This brings me to a recent post by Pastor Lane Keister of Green Baggins, where he compiled an “Index of RINE Posts” to help his readers glean through his review of “Reformed” Is Not Enough and the subsequent blog exchanges with the Fearless Leader. And if I’m not mistaken, I believe it’s possible that Pastor Lane met the Great Protector in this very thread on The Heidelblog, in a post where Dr. Clark called it quits.

So I present these exchanges to you on my FDAAB not because I care about the Fearless Leader’s then-stated position on the visible/invisible church; he will say anything at any time as long it will keep him in the center of attention. I present these exchanges because I want you to notice the personal dynamics at work between Lane and Wilson. More specifically, notice how Wilson misrepresents Lane to put Dr. Clark on the spot — to pit them against each other because Wilson had a vendetta against Dr. Clark (which, beware, remains to this day) and he needed to isolate him, much like a wolf isolates his prey before he pounces on it. Leave it to ol’ Beelzeblog, you can be sure he’s always sowing discord among the brethren. He does it because he loves God so much.

You also need to notice how casually Wilson misrepresented Lane in order to obtain his prey. Anyone reading this exchange can see that Lane is a hardcore WCF man who holds firmly to the divines’ exact words. Despite this, Wilson just lied, matter of factly, not because he respected Lane but because he thought of him as just another TR schmuck who didn’t have a clue. Or maybe I have this all wrong; maybe this was an instance where an FVist didn’t personally contact a TR before he represented him in public. No, I doubt it.

So, here it is, the fully documented introduction to Pastor Lane’s “Index of RINE Posts”:

Douglas Wilson, do you affirm the inner/outer distinction as, say, Clark would affirm it, or are you equating “militant/eschatological” with the inner/outer distinction?

January 3, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane, perhaps you could tell me in what sense I am using the external/internal distinction. Here is a quote from “Reformed” Is Not Enough, which incidentally has quotation marks around the word Reformed.

This might be called regeneration, theologically considered. A man is either regenerate or he is not. When the word regeneration is being used in this sense, we are talking about an invisible operation performed by the Spirit of God, who does what He does when and how it pleases Him. And when we are talking about what might be called this “effectual-call-regeneration,” we have to repudiate every form of baptismal or decisional regeneration. We do not control the Spirit of God at the baptismal font any more than we control Him with our spiritual laws booklets. (p. 39)

I would add that I see a strong parallel between a true Jew, who is one inwardly, according to St. Paul, and a true Christian, who is right with God in the same way. I make that point on page 18.

January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Douglas Wilson, thanks for the courteous response. To be honest, I don’t have your book (actually I don’t have Mother Kirk either), and so was asking a genuine question. Right now, what’s in the back of my mind is your article in Federal Vision on the visible/invisible church distinction. In your opinion, is the distinction between the eternally elect and the eternally non-elect to be defined in merely “militant/eschatological” terms, or is there an ontological distinction with regard to regeneration? The quotation from your book would seem to favor the latter. However, the article in Federal Vision confuses me as to your position. Maybe another way to ask the question is this: how would you interpret John 15? What I’m getting at is that “militant/eschatological” is not the same thing one bit as the visible/invisible distinction. The former is a distinction based on time. The latter is a distinction based on the ontological difference between those in the church regenerated and those in the church not regenerated.

I have had a rather extensive conversation on John 15 over at my blog: “John 15 and the Federal Vision”

January 3, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane, I hold that there is an ontological difference between a covenant member truly converted and one who is not, and that is what I was referring to in the quote. For more on this, you can check the archives of my blog under the heading Life in the Regeneration. And this ontological difference is not related (except obliquely) to the historical/eschatological distinction I made in the Federal Vision book. This is not something I have failed to say, but it something that many of my critics have refused to see. . . .

January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Mr. Wilson, thanks for the reply. My next question is this: if you do believe in an ontological distinction within the church, then why not call that distinction the visible/invisible church distinction as the WCF does?

How would you respond to this blog entry of mine? “Methodology and Double-Speak”

What I’m getting at in that blog entry is that many FV guys *say* that they believe in the 5 points of Calvinism, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the visible/invisible church distinction, and other highlights of Reformed thought. But do they take away with one hand what they have given in the other? To me there is no question that most of these guys affirm Reformed thought in some place or other. That is not the question (something FV guys usually miss about the critics are saying). The question is whether or not the FV guys consistently hold to it. The critics are saying that they do not hold to Reformed teaching consistently, and that the “extras” wind up denying Reformed teaching implicitly. I am not necessarily accusing you of this, Mr. Wilson. But it is an issue with which all the FV guys need to wrestle.

I appreciate the fact that we cannot tell who is elect and who is not (though some people give off some fairly decent indications one way or the other). But does that mean that we shouldn’t use the language of election and distinction in talking about the church? It seems to me that the FV folks look at Eph 1 and similar passages and argue that Paul must be using that language in some kind of true fashion of everyone in the church. What about the judgment of charity? I have yet to see Wilkins deal with this, for instance. He just assumes his interpretation of Eph 1 is correct.

January 3, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane, to answer your question, it seems to me to be a completely different issue. To affirm the ontological distinction between those who are truly regenerate and those who are not is not the same question of the visible/invisible church (a distinction which I accept, btw, but which I prefer to amplify with other distinctions, like historical/eschatological). Both of these distinctions go back to Augustine, but I don’t have a problem with either one, especially when they are taken in concert.

But the reason I think your question is confusing two things that should be kept distinct is this. The invisible church is composed of the entire company of the elect, throughout all history. That means that the atheist across the street, predestined to be converted next year, is a member of the invisible church. He is elect. But he is also ontologically unregenerate.

Look at it from another angle. The invisible church is made up of all those who are ontologically regenerate (at the eschaton). But if we try to draw a parallel, this makes the visible church . . . what? Unregenerate? I really think they are different but related issues.

January 3, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Mr. Wilson, I appreciate the logic (though disagreeing with it) of your position. The logical end of your position, however, is having the (to my mind) unthinkable situation where a complete pagan, at enmity with God, and spitting on Christ and all His messengers, is *at the same time* a member of the invisible church. Where is the Scriptural support for this idea? The WCF emphasizes the fact that they are *gathered* at various times. From God’s perspective it is certainly true that the number of the elect neither augments nor diminishes. However, from our perspective, surely the church increases, even the invisible church. Is not faith the entrance into the invisible church? Are you doing justice to the divine/human perspective differences on the invisible church?

January 4, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane,

No, the invisible church “consists [right now] of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.” In other words, the invisible church and the elect are coterminous, right? The invisible church includes now those who shall be gathered into the visible church. In short, Lane, the number of those in the invisible church cannot be increased or diminished. People are not gathered into the invisible church. They are gathered into the visible church. . . .

January 4, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Mr. Wilson, you say “People are not gathered into the invisible church.” The WCF 25.1 says “The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be **gathered** into one.” Are you really saying that the WCF doesn’t say that the elect are gathered? This borders on the non-sensical. Mr. Wilson, you did not answer my argument about the two different perspectives, God’s and ours. This is how I explain the difficulty that has been pointed out by Mr. Wilson, and now by Xon. Yes, the elect and the invisible church are coterminous. I’m not disagreeing with that formulation at all. But the elect are not saved until they believe. Mr. Wilson, you also have not answered the absurdity I pointed out of having absolute pagans being simultaneously members of the invisible church.

Invisible church=/=the elect people in the Church at present.

This is Xon’s phrase, by the way, not Wilson’s. This definition contradicts what you said earlier, Xon. If it consists of those in the church at present, then, humanly, speaking, the invisible church increases, though from God’s perspective the number of the elect never changes. That my interpretation of the WCF is correct can be seen from the way in which “gathered” is used right alongside of the present tense “consists.” Wilkins, for one, denies that the invisible church exists right now at all. That is obviously out of accord with the WCF. However, to say (as Mr. Wilson and Xon are saying) that because the number of the elect neither increase nor diminish means that a total pagan is simultaneously a member of the church is utter absurdity. One must make allowances for the difference in perspective from God’s perspective to our own. Xon, until you acknowledge that this answers your objections to my position, you don’t have a leg upon which to stand.

There must be a difference in our understanding of how the decree works versus how that decree happens in history. This is the point I am trying to make here. From the perspective of God’s decree, everything is nailed down in stone. But in history, things change in a person’s life. By defining the invisible church the way you have, Mr. Wilson and Xon, you have effectively bereft the concept of any meaningful interaction with history. To quote Van Til, there is no transition from wrath to grace in your system. You are misinterpreting the WCF.

January 4, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane, it is for the purpose of interacting meaningfully with history that I use the distinction of historical and eschatological church. And I agree that it is absurd to talk about total pagans being members of the invisible church — if that is the only thing you say. But the WCF definition of the invisible church includes millions not yet born, and many tens of thousands not yet converted. When these people are born and then born again, they are gathered into the visible church. But they are already in the invisible church, in the intent and decrees of God.

If you want to say that they are gathered into the invisible church, that the invisible church grows, this is out of accord with the Confession. The “were, are, and will be gathered” is referring to the outworking of God’s decrees in history, which is done through the visible church. But the invisible church is made up of the elect, and we agree that the Confession is using the word elect here decretally, right? That means that if there is an invisible church now, then all the members of it have to be in it now. All the elect are members of the invisible church. The invisible church consists (present tense) of those who will be gathered (future tense).

Scott Clark, I am genuinely curious if you agree with what Lane and Christaan have argued here — that the invisible church grows as people are gathered into it. Now, in 2007, does the invisible church only partially exist?

January 4, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Mr. Wilson, you have misrepresented my position in your question to Dr. Clark. I do not believe that, from God’s perspective, the invisible church is only partially in existence today. In eternity, the invisible church is whole and wholly in the mind of God and in the decree. However, in history, the invisible church is not complete. It still has growing to do. I do not understand what is so difficult about this. We acknowledge a difference in perspective between God and man wrt God’s Sovereignty and human responsibility (acknowledging that God’s Sovereignty is primary, of course). But what does it look like to us? It looks like a choice. The same is true for how we view the invisible church as opposed to how God views the invisible church.

If you want to say that they are gathered into the invisible church, that the invisible church grows, this is out of accord with the Confession.

I am saying that this is true from a human perspective: in history, the invisible church grows. But to say that the invisible church is gathered is *explicitly* what the WCF says! It uses the very word. You have still not answered my logic here, Mr. Wilson. I will keep on hammering away at it until you answer, if necessary. To say that you are viewing the church as militant/eschatological is not the same thing as what I’m saying, since militant/eschatological is a diachronic distinction, and I am arguing for a synchronic distinction. So when a person comes to faith, although he was always a member of the invisible church in the mind of God, yet in time he becomes a member of the invisible church when he comes to faith. He makes a transition from wrath to grace. Otherwise, one has to assert that faith only makes you a member of the visible church. If that is true, then there is no guarantee of salvation, since one can then get out of the visible church. If the only thing that faith does is get us into the visible church, then we are in trouble. I cannot and will not accept that position.

January 4, 2007 | Lane Keister

Lane, if you want to have the invisible church existing “in history,” in a way that is distinct from the visible church, then you are out of accord with the Confession. That is because the invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect.” A partial number of the elect is not the invisible church because it is not the whole number of them. It would make sense to speak of the whole number of the truly regenerate at this moment of 2007, but this is just a partial congregation within the invisible church. It is a subset of the invisible church, not the invisible church itself — just as Christ Church here in Moscow is a congregation within the visible church; we are a subset.

If the invisible church includes the whole number of the elect, then it exists right now in the mind of God. I affirm this, as does Wilkins. If you want it to exist right now in history, then you have to do something about the “whole number of the elect,” which includes current atheists who will be converted tomorrow and saints yet unborn. In short, you cannot have the invisible church, as the WCF defines it, in history. You can have a invisible congregation of the invisible church, but how helpful is that?

January 4, 2007 | Douglas Wilson

Mr. Wilson and Xon, I am going to let Rev. Wes White’s paper on the visible/invisible church be my last word on this debate. He says it quite as well as anyone: “The Church: Its Definition in Terms of ‘Visible’ and ‘Invisible’ Valid”

January 5, 2007 | Lane Keister

Mr. Wilson, I have addressed your blog entry in my comment here. It is the LC 64-67 with which your position cannot deal.

January 6, 2007 | Lane Keister

Things have changed now; the Fearless Leader has backed off Dr. Clark and he has nothing but hugs and kisses for Pastor Lane — at least in public. But I assure you that he disdains Lane no less today than that day in January 2007 when he twisted his words without hesitation in order to bag his prey.

Thank you.

The Religious Shyster

Pastor Bordow posted another brilliant comment on GB that really nails it. Each paragraph broaches points that deserve entire posts. Please stop for a moment to contemplate these words:

That is why no matter how many churches DW splits, how many disciplined and defrocked pastors he unleashes on people, no matter how many individuals and families formally under his ministry cry out of the pain he causes. . .

Here is a man with a well-known and well-documented record of splitting churches, reinstating defrocked & disciplined pastors, providing cover for pastors fleeing discipline, and abusing sheep so much and with such skill that he wrote a “how to” manual on the subject, which he named after the blade of a knife — A Serrated Edge. And in a sick irony, he predicated his thesis for the book on a tortured interpretation of Galatians 5:12, the very epistle written to warn the Church against the Judaizers. I called it ironic because he is the Judaizer troubling the Church and by his sick standard he is the one who deserves to have his giblets sliced off. Despite these facts — and they are facts — the vast majority of the Christian church treats him as a brother in the faith. Frankly, I don’t know what more he could do to demonstrate any more clearly his utter contempt for the Christian church as an institution and for Christians in general as the people of God than what he has already done.

Here is Pastor Bordow’s comment in entirety:

Lane,

Sorry for the delay. I’m not sure if you are referring to me as a “wacko” — never been called that before! Look, the point is that we in the Reformed community are not immune to our superstitions, just like the Pentecostal or larger evangelical world, and that is what the attraction to DW, Jordan, Sproul Jr., etc., exposes.

Provide an alternative to the often poor education offered in the public schools — wonderful. But scare me into pulling my kids out of the public schools or receive God’s curses, and follow DW’s way of education and receive God’s blessings, that is simply peddling the Word of God for personal gain — no different than what we see Rod Parsley do on television every day (give to the kingdom out of love for Christ — wonderful; give to his station to receive God’s blessings — peddling the Word of God).

DW is all about finding ways to work to secure God’s blessings. How to secure faithful children through “covenantal” nurture, how to secure more of God’s grace by weekly communion and liturgical reform, how to secure God’s blessings on America if the Church only does A, B, and C, etc. . . .

We are not taken in by the Hinns, Olsteens, etc., and we are proud of it. But the prominence of DW types in the Reformed community reveals a similar lack of assurance in the gospel that we find in the broader evangelical community. That is why no matter how many churches DW splits, how many disciplined and defrocked pastors he unleashes on people, no matter how many individuals and families formally under his ministry cry out of the pain he causes, much of the Reformed world continues to treat him as a respected Reformed minister — why? — we are desperate for God’s blessings, weak in the all-sufficiency of the gospel to merit all of God’s blessings, and enticed by a system of blessings and curses based upon our own works.

DW is an old-fashioned religious shyster laughing all the way to the bank as we take him seriously, as we buy his books, etc. If you ever wonder how educated people could sit and listen to these televangelists and their incredible claims of how to secure God’s blessings on your finances, marriage, children, etc., go no further than looking in our own back yard. We are no better; we are no less tempted.

Happy Easter to all! — may you preach the all-sufficiency of Christ crucified and risen to merit all God’s eternal blessings (Eph. 1:3).

Todd Bordow

Thank you.

An Excellent Comment

This is an extremely well-written and thoughtful analysis that the Reformed church should contemplate because this much is certain: the Fearless Leader and his terrorist organization the CREC do not intend to go away. Indeed, they plan to continue their harassment of the Church by spreading false doctrine and raiding congregations for doug-booty, primarily because the Reformed church prematurely accorded credibility to the Great Protector without ever testing him, which credibility he now exploits to advance his kingdom and build his empire:

The notoriety of a Doug Wilson is an indictment against the entire Reformed community. Even before the FV hoopla, DW found a market in the Reformed community for his wares. He found a community more interested in separation than evangelism, (faithfulness to God requires pulling kids from public education), found men desiring priestly headship over servant-hood (Federal Husband), found a community more interested in political victory than reaching the lost (post-mil theonomy), found ministers desiring the priestly authority of the Old Covenant, as well as ministers willing to compromise sola fide (FV), and found a community open to family idolatry (paedocommunion, God guarantees faithful children if parents obey). All these represent a return to the Old Covenant, to its blessings and curses for obedience, its separation from unbelievers, its dominion theology, its male dominance, and its priestly regulations, all which have been fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Why else would anyone take seriously a self-ordained man with no seminary education who writes books as an expert on ecclesiology, American history, slavery, marriage, Reformed theology, culture, education, etc. . . . if there wasn’t already a market for his Old Covenant take on things? Why else would people who claim to love the Bible allow a man to so easily twist a few Scriptures? (Deut. 6 as a manifesto on who can teach math to your child; II Cor. 10:5 wrenched completely out of context to support his political worldview; Matt 28:19, which obviously commands the church to be an instrument of evangelism and sanctification to individuals from every nation — to a manifesto to teach political entities the laws they must obey to govern.)

In other words, if the Reformed community was busy obeying the Lord’s command to love and reach the lost, and teach the Bible accurately, they would never have taken a man like DW seriously. But as long as there is a propensity among the Reformed to return to the typology of the Old Covenant law, DWs will arise and find a hearing among us. I only admire DW for one thing — the same I admired Bill Clinton for — he is a great marketer — too bad we are the gullible market.

Todd Bordow

Thank you.

Not Even a Mutt

Last November, Dougzilla blogstomped all over Bob Mattes and, by extension, the PCA for plugging my fully documented anonymous attack blog. I believe that at the time Reformed Musings speculated about the Fearless Leader’s ministerial credentials as well, which compelled the Great Protector to give this account of his ordination to the ministry:

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. . . . (“Standing Google Commission”)

Not much, I know, but those are his words and that was his story; but I’m not sure if he’s sticking to it because today he posted the following comment on Green Baggins in response to a few hecklers who noted that he has no ministerial credentials:

And, joking aside, I actually have been ordained. I tell the story of that in the back of Mother Kirk, for those who have a need to follow up on it. I was not ordained in accordance with any regular Reformed protocols, and I would describe my ordination as irregular, but there.

The demand for regular ordination (in an all or nothing fashion) coming from Presbyterians is kind of funny. With Calvin, we simply have no record of his ordination one way or the other. But with John Knox, the father of all presbyterial-apostolic-successional ordinations, we know exactly how it happened. A rag-tag “congregation” with no formal identity as a church, holed up in St. Andrews Castle after the assassination of Beaton, called him to the ministry, and so then, Bob’s yer uncle. So in order to be legitimate, you have to be able to trace it back to that, as though the ministry were a line of pure-bred spaniels. I say it again. Heh.

The Fearless Leader’s tip inspired me to rifle through the piles of doug poop in my doug kennel for my copy of Mother Kirk, in order to transcribe the account and save the three people who might actually care about this fairytale the trouble of ordering the book and losing 20 bucks. I found the book beneath a load of doug manure. Here is his story as he told it in 2001:

EPILOGUE

Having written this book, I must now apologize, at least in part, for how the book came to be written by someone like, as the Victorians used to say, the present writer. At the time of writing, I have been a minister of the Word for twenty-three years. But how that came about contains more than a few ecclesiastical irregularities.

I came to the University of Idaho in the fall of 1975, fresh out of the Navy, and ready to study philosophy. My intention was to study various unbelieving philosophies and to then get involved in some kind of evangelistic literature ministry in a university town somewhere. Right around the same time, a church was being planted in our town by an Evangelical Free Church in a nearby community. The fellowship was successfully planted, but this new church never affiliated with the Free Church. This was not due to any doctrinal or personal differences; it was due mostly to the fact that it was the seventies. I was at the organizing meeting for this church and wound up as one of the guitar-playing songleaders. The best way to describe this would be to say that it was some kind of “Jesus people” operation.

After about a year and a half of meeting, the man who had been doing the preaching (ordained by a Baptist denomination) announced that he had gotten a job elsewhere and that he was moving. We were on our own the following Sunday. As I said, it was the seventies. The idea of going into pastoral ministry had not occurred to me, but when it did, I didn’t like it very much. Nevertheless, as things turned out, I was up in front with the guitar. That was my call to the ministry; I knew all the chords. I began to preach.

Our church had been planted by an established denomination, but we had no constitution, no doctrinal standards, no established leadership. I started what we called a “responsible brothers” meeting to fill the void of leadership — ad hoc elders. We knew from the Scriptures that we needed to be governed by elders, but we didn’t have any. We received some teaching on elder qualifications from the pastor of the Evangelical Free church that had established our church, and as a result different men among the responsible brothers removed themselves from consideration. In this situation, I presented myself to the congregation and asked them to bring forward any objections to my holding office of elder within the next few weeks. If no one did, then I would assume the office. As it turned out, no one did, and I have been working with this congregation of faithful and longsuffering saints ever since.

All this, as I said earlier, was highly irregular, and I would rather be dead in a ditch than to go back to that way of doing ecclesiastical business. . . . (Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001] 267–268)

No honest man could call this act of self-will “an ordination” — not even irregular. Indeed, if that’s ordination then Toto was a flying monkey. Nevertheless, this trail of doug droppings should help everyone understand that words have no meaning to Douglas Wilson. They’re just gusts of hot air blown out of a bottomless pit of deceit whenever the evil one needs to correct another inconsistency.

And the moral of this story is found in St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.”

Thank you.

New Website

U P D A T E : Sean Mahaffey has written several comments that he wants posted on this website but since he has been consistently rude and deceitful I have exercised my editorial prerogative to censor him. Nevertheless, here is a shortened version of his claims quoted directly from his comments; please check the comments section to learn about my two witnesses who furnished me with their narratives:

I wrote the article in an attempt to dissuade people from smoking marijuana. . . . I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, bought, sold, handled, condoned or recommended marijuana. . . . The Squire was not a school or church newsletter. . . . I started the Squire mailing list from names from the CWSC [Christian Worldview Students Conference] in Virginia. The intended audience was college students and other 18–30 year olds. . . We added the names of friends and family and other names that were sent to us. We only had a mailing list of 400–500. . . . The Squire was under the general oversight of the pastors of the church — at our request they read all the issues before they were published. . . . Pastor Booth was on the school board and taught one class a year at the school (usually Logic). . . . Randy Booth was instumental [sic] in establishing Veritas. Without Randy Booth . . . the school would never have been established. . . . I am not drop-dead certain that no student at Veritas ever received or read a copy of the Squire. . . we printed about 500 copies of each issue and there were some church families on the mailing list. . . . Aaron Booth . . . fell into sin while he was in college. . . . The article was written before the drug scandal. I’m not sure if Aaron read the article, but I know it was sent to a lot of NSA students. . . . I don’t have a copy of any letter about Pastor Booth and I wouldn’t send you anything if I did.

Here’s a new fully documented website named Ganja Vision, which is dedicated to an article written by CREC elder Sean Mahaffey on the biblical arguments for smoking marijuana. Although Mahaffey was not an elder when he wrote this column, he was a teacher at one of the Fearless Leader’s classical Christian schools in the ACCS. Furthermore, I suspect that the incredible irresponsibility he showed in writing this piece for the school paper was the deciding factor in making him an elder.

Thank you.

Prince Blog

When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. — Proverbs 16:7

No line establishes Douglas Wilson’s worldview better than the one he wrested from Cotton Mather, who (may have) wrote, “Numquam bella piis, numquam certamina desunt” (Magnalia Christi Americana), which means, “For the faithful, wars shall never cease.” He uses this motto for New Saint Andrews College’s epigraph or, put another way, it is the foundation for the indoctrination that takes place at NSA. War defines his faith just as it animates his person. It is his essence. We see this in NSA’s maxim and we see it in the name of his blog, which you shouldn’t take for granted. Would a true minister of the gospel really name his blog after Prince Gog of the land of Magog?

Think about it. His blog is the familiar medium he uses to communicate with his disciples and he named it to rhyme with the OT’s prince of the Northern hordes that lived to persecute and harass God’s people. I’m sure he thinks it cute and clever. But suddenly it’s not so clever when you consider the fruit of Wilson’s ministry, which he consciously defined by persecuting and harassing God’s people. Indeed, he could have named it “Blogom and Blogmorrah” or “Blogylon” or “Moab is My Blogspot” or “Iscariot’s Place” or . . . you get the picture. He’s a blogolater — a blogomite. This is one reason I call him Beelzeblog; he wants his ministry marked by the names of demonic oppressors in Scripture and I am happy to oblige. But the point is that his soul loves violence; he’s a war child, which leads to the next point.

Green Baggineses has had an interesting thread addressing Scripture’s teaching on the roll of women in the deaconate and how this may affect the PCA. Naturally Douglas Wilson — Beelzeblog, Nimblog, Sanblogit, Alexander the bloggersmith — stated his opinion, which he offered ex cathedra for the reading world to marvel:

Douglas Wilson said. . . . .

One additional comment. Although I believe that a biblical polity permits women to hold the distinct office of widow/deaconness, I also believe that the pressing threat of feminism means that we should forbear exercising that option for the time being until we have defeated egalitarianism in the Church — much like how the Reformers granted that the laying on of hands was biblical, but because so much superstition had gotten attached to it, they skipped it for a while.

He affirms that the Bible reveals “the distinct office of widow/deaconness” (don’t miss the word “widow,” it’s an escape hatch; so is “a biblical polity”) but he repudiates the office “until we have defeated egalitarianism in the Church.” Follow the argument:

• Scripture authorizes the distinct office of deaconess for women to hold.


• Beelzeblog believes that feminism and egalitarianism pose a “pressing threat” to the Church.


• Therefore, the Church must not obey Scripture or honor women by allowing women to hold their distinct office.

Marvelous. Prince Blog believes that his opinion, which is grounded in mere imagination or total madness, overrides Scripture to the point that he can abolish a biblically prescribed office (at least an office he believes the Bible prescribes; the point of this essay is not the role of women in the deaconate) until everyone agrees with him and sees the world through his eyes. In short, the primacy of church government resides in him and his position leaves no room for any authority to challenge him — including Scripture.

Test the argument: Scripture authorizes the office of elder and permits only men to hold it, but since pastoral tyranny represents such a huge threat to the Church we should prohibit men from holding the office or we should refrain from recognizing it until we vanquish pastoral abuse in the Church, as demonstrated by such thugs as Wilson. Makes perfect sense. In fact, we can push the argument further. The Bible teaches justification by faith alone, but since certain men who hold this truth constitute a threat to the Church (think of the regulars on GB), pastors should forbear practicing this doctrine until the Federal Vision has squelched the menace.

In fact, the Fearless Leader’s argument is so absurd that even James Jordan called him on it, stating, “And, if you want to fight feminism, you need to start honoring women and stop treating the church as a boy’s club.” (How ironic that this comment fell from the lips of the most spoiled brat in the boy’s club.) Better yet, a woman caught the Great Protector’s inconsistency and called him on it:

Mary Kathryn said,

BTW, regarding Wilson’s post — if someone really believes that Scripture allows for women to be deaconesses, and that God has both equipped and called some women to do such work, then I think he would be remiss to purposely deny those women the opportunity to perform the work God has given them to do, regardless of the noble ambition to protect the gospel. I believe the gospel can well defend itself. Such hesitations are cowardly, IMO.

Douglas Wilson said,

Mary Kathryn, cowardice is one possible explanation. There are others, pastoral concerns among them — a man who believes we cannot fight all battles at once is not the same as a man who would run from any battle.

Mary Kathryn said,

Doug — I think it’s unfortunate that a person with such convictions would view the situation as a battle. (And a person may be a coward in one situation and not in another.) The opportunity to offer expanded service to a fellow-believer is a wonderful thing. I think, frankly, that we have women in the PCA who have been deprived of service for so many generations that they are now incapable of assuming such a role, even if it were offered them. A man who embraced such an opportunity would be noble indeed. Although I remain undecided on a woman’s role as a deacon/ess, I do think that Christian men in general may have a sharp comeuppance at the judgment, when they discover the things they have denied to their sisters, all out of fear.

This would have stung if Wilson had a conscience; but it didn’t because he doesn’t. Nevertheless, you should take note whenever a woman corrects Dougzilla on a hill he identified as a field of battle; it’s always pure poetry: “Was it not a woman who cast a piece of a millstone on him from the wall?” (2 Sam. 11:21.) And in this exchange Mary Kathryn sees the inherent beauty of serving God; the Fearless Leader sees a field of battle. A servant of God desires to serve; a professed servant longs to fight. Scripture frames Mary Kathryn’s worldview; enemies — and the need to wage war against them — frames Prince Blog’s. The two could not be farther apart. And the terrible irony is that Mary Kathryn and her worldview are the real enemies against whom the Great Protector has declared war in order to defend the Church from . . . well . . . from the Mary Kathryns in the Church, however that works.

Now consider the Fearless Leader’s need for war from another angle. According to his interview with the Moscow–Pullman Daily News, Wilson said he co-wrote (plagiarized) the book Southern Slavery As It Was “to defend the Bible as a whole.” He said, “I did know I was defending an unpopular issue . . . I resolved a long time ago that I would not be ashamed of anything in the Bible.” This is an incredible statement when you note that SSAIW defends the Southern institution of chattel slavery and its subsidiary industry of manstealing, which the Bible condemns as a capital crime. And since Wilson was not ashamed to defend an institution anathematized by Scripture and he was no less ashamed to assert that the Bible agreed with him, a civil war erupted on the Palouse where the enemies he cultivated (he calls them “intoleristas”) and the damage he wrought to the gospel remain to this day.

So in the case of deaconesses, Wilson repudiates Scripture in order to facilitate his war against feminists and egalitarians, and in the case of slavery he repudiates Scripture in order to declare war on mankind in general and the Palouse in particular. In both cases, he turns Holy Writ on its head; both instances torture reason; both positions oppress specific classes of the human race; both cases deliberately provoke, antagonize, and incite hostility; both instances place the Fearless Leader in front of an imaginary army to fight enemies of his own making; and both positions originate in the brain of one who identifies himself with Prince Gog of the land of Magog. “Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Rev. 13:4.)

You now have a glimpse into the mind of Douglas Wilson. He has no sense of reality other than what he fabricates to prosecute his ceaseless wars, which for him define his faithfulness to a god of his fantasies — a god revealed in a Bible that means so little to him that he dismisses it out of hand or twists it beyond recognition so that he may continue his fight against his never-ending parade of enemies.

Thank you.