Some Schools Have Real Standards

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Copyright Dealies

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

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

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

Visionaries,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

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



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

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

Thank you.

Front-page Comment

I just received an excellent comment in response to “The Scarlet Letter” that deserves front-page attention. He premised his point on this quote from the Fearless Leader:

I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t.

Here’s the comment:

Anonymous said . . .

The APE. That is hilarious.

But to the point. Your fully documented anonymous attack blog also points out two other issues. First, why is Wilson listed as coauthor, if he was not, as he admits, all that familiar with the contents? Was it to put his good name as a pastor on yet one more controversial project? Was it to fraudulently mislead people into buying a book that, if it had Wilkins’ name alone, might not otherwise have sold as well? Secondly, the APE and his monkey boys love to attach so much value to a person’s name upon his writings that the use of anonymity automatically renders, in their primal minds, the writing false. Yet, the APE is willing to falsely attach his true name as the author of poorly argued plagiarized writings that Wilkins stole, and continues to assert their veracity, because he, Doug Wilson, using his true and given name, says so.

Once again we see that if the Great Protector didn’t have a double standard, he wouldn’t have any at all.

Thank you.

The Scarlet Letter

I want to take a moment from my busy anonymous-attack-blogging schedule to arbitrate a dispute between Dr. Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer, and Mr. Douglas Wilson, pastor of the Christ Church Cult.

The dispute began two nights ago in the combox at Green Bagginses after the Fearless Leader described the scholarship of Drs. Clark & Waters as “slipshod,” at least as it applied to their criticisms of his work. Of course, challenging the competence of those who disagree with him is the automatic default tactic for Beelzeblog. It’s instinctual for him because as God’s appointed authority on pretty much everything in the universe, he can recognize “slipshod” work from afar. It’s one of his gifts and one of the reasons he doesn’t need formal training. Or ordination. He is THE authority.

Dr. Johnson, however, has no such gifts from on high and God has not appointed him THE authority on all things. After all, the definite article “THE” precludes anyone else from holding the title, especially since it’s capitalized. Consequently, Dr. Johnson had to earn his credentials the hard way by doing under- and post-graduate studies in various schools, where he obtained the titles Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and Doctor of Theology (D. Theo.).

And for the record, I am not sucking up to Dr. Johnson by heralding his credentials. Some men with letters couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag. But Dr. Johnson established his ability to think critically when he endorsed my blog. Clearly he recognizes the difference between a fully documented anonymous attack blog, such as mine, and self-willed autonomous attack blog, such as Wilson’s. Speaking of whom, for all I know he thinks that the letters STD stand for sexually transmitted disease. This probably explains why he, as a so-called minister of the gospel, filed a frivolous police complaint against people in the community who publicly criticized him and accused them of leaving used condoms in his mailbox. Icky. I am sure that in his mind it makes sense. When people commit the unpardonable sin of calling him to repent in public, they have crossed the invisible line that separates decent, law-abiding citizens from lawless felons who commit grotesque crimes. Indeed, the temptation to discard soiled prophylactics in the property of the US Postal Service overwhelms them. Yes, I’m sure it makes sense to the Great Protector.

Back to my point: Yesterday, Dr. Johnson reminded the Fearless Leader that the stigma of plagiarism stains his credentials and it undermines his standing to comment on anyone else’s scholarship. The Fearless Leader, however, denies Dr. Johnson’s premise. Here’s the thread:

Douglas Wilson said,

Lane, Andy, everyone . . . .

So what is the issue? The issue lies with two categories of critic — first, those who are constitutionally or dispositionally incapable of getting it right. Those who cannot understand the professor’s lectures need to show up for office hours. I am speaking here of those critics that have been shown to be guilty of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and distortions. Lest there be any mistake, there has been no response to my demonstrations of the slipshod work by Guy Waters, Scott Clark and others. And if you doubt that I have or could demonstrate this, why don’t you try to set up that debate I keep talking about between me and any of these gentlemen? I don’t keep saying that I am misunderstood, I keep proving that I am misunderstood. In response (with the exception of men like Lane), all I hear are the crickets. . . .

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

Accusing Waters and Clark of slipshod scholarship is rich indeed coming from someone who is permanently tainted with the scarlet letter P hanging around his neck.

Douglas Wilson said,

Gary, the fact that you actually believe that the scarlet letter P has been placed around my neck is yet another example of what I am talking about. I have no more plagiarized than I have denied any of the five solas. Keep trying.

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

The embarrassing fact, and one that you can not escape from, is that you co-authored a book that was chocked full of plagiarism. You bear your share of responsibility by virtue of having your name on the cover. It would be refreshing if you could stop spinning around long enough to acknowledge your capability. But it seems that ever admitting that you are in the wrong is something that constitutionally you are unable to do.

GLW Johnson said,

TP

DW accused Waters and Clark of faulty scholarship but evades his own responsibility for co-authoring a perfectly dreadful book (that in and of itself doesn’t pass the smell test when it comes to what the question of responsible historical scholarship) that commits the cardinal sin of blatant plagiarism. Just to refresh your memory, but DW went to great lengths to “Clintonize” what constitutes plagiarism. It was pathetic. So pardon me, but when DW starts talking about scholarship, I have a hard time believing he knows what he is talking about — so does a hundred or so faculty members at the Univ. of Idaho.

Douglas Wilson said,

First, on Wesley. After my article on Wesley appeared in Antithesis, I received a letter from Arnold Dallimore commending the article, and basically affirming that what I had written about him wasn’t really the half of it. But I do agree in principle — if Wesley had been collaborating with others, had electronic transfer problems, if his editor had been an electronic nincompoop, if he plausibly claimed that the problem in the citations was entirely an accident, and corrected them in the next edition while owning full responsibility for the mistakes and sloppiness, then I would agree that my condemnation of him was far too harsh.

Gary, what you call “Clintonizing” was Steve Wilkins taking full responsibility for the citation problems, which occurred in his sections, and with me refusing to let him do that. I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t. Those who want to read a full account of this can do so in the back of Black & Tan.

Gary, your partisanship is blinding you to issues of basic fairness here. In the past, before all this nastiness erupted, I have contributed to a book that you edited. Suppose — don’t worry! — citation problems are dnow iscovered [sic] in what I wrote and submitted to you, and they somehow got by you. It would be appropriate for you to take responsibility for any number of things editorially, but to demand that you take personal responsibility as though you were a plagiarist (because somebody else made a mistake that you missed) would be a bit thick. And, if someone were out there demanding that you take that kind of responsibility anyway, it would perhaps be a fair conclusion to think that such a one had an axe to grind. Wouldn’t it?

This is really clever rhetoric. Notice that Wilson acknowledges and diminishes his responsibility as editor while he completely ignores his responsibilities as co-author and publisher. Additionally, he gladly points to Steven “Machen” Wilkins laying prostrate on his sword — “It’s his fault!” Furthermore, he muddies the water with the whole “electronic transfer” thingy, leaving it to our imaginations to create a scenario where the electronics magically deleted certain footnote citations at the beginning of each of Wilkins’ paragraphs — but what about the missing citations in Wilkins’ other books? Moreover, he equivocates between plagiarism, which he redefined as “intellectual theft,” and an “editorial error,” which he defined as “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious.” Hmmmm, I wonder what made the editorial error so “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious”? What would the administration of NSA do to a student if he committed an editorial error of this “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious” magnitude? Perhaps we’ll never know. Finally, after sufficiently revising the historical facts to help him elude accountability for his role in the plagiarism, Beelzeblog concluded that Dr. Johnson has an ax to grind. It all makes perfect sense.

Obviously we have a standoff between the Ph.D. and the wannabe. One affirms what the other denies. Dr. Johnson cast his lot with the 76(?) academics on the Palouse who affirm that Douglas Wilson and Steven “Machen” Wilkins committed plagiarism when they co-wrote the monograph Southern Slavery As It Was; and Mr. Wilson cast his lot with himself, asserting that he “was part of” an “editorial error that . . . was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious,” whatever that means; but it was “not . . . plagiarism.”

This is our dispute and in arbitrating it I shall not be arbitrary or capricious. To be sure, I intend to apply my fully documented anonymous attack skills to this quarrel and hopefully we can put this controversy to rest once and for all.

The book Southern Slavery As It Was was published by Canon Press, which is a publishing ministry of the Christ Church Cult, subject to the authority of the elders and which uses the same standard contract for all its books, at least during the ’90s. We know this because one of Canon Press’ contracts is a matter of public record and was used as evidence by two local citizens in a property-tax dispute that resulted in the Latah County Commissioners revoking Christ Church’s 501(c)(3) property-tax exemption. (To see the contract, please click here.)

According to the terms of this contract, Douglas Wilson wears two hats — “Author” and “Publisher.” Moreover, according to the book in question he wears a third hat — “Editor,” which combined with the other two makes for the handy acronym APE. This brings us to the question “What covenantal obligations, if any, does the Canon Press contract place on the APE?” And this is a fair question to ask because, in the end, disputes such as this one are one reason men enter into contracts, or covenants, if you will. Accordingly, on page 2 of the contract, beneath the subsection titled “Delivery of Manuscript and Related Material,” it states:

The author shall bear the responsibility for securing all permissions and consents for use, which shall be delivered to the Publisher with the manuscript.

This clause places the responsibility for securing permissions on the Author, while it obligates the Publisher to receive such from the Author. In other words, the APE was responsible to secure, deliver, and receive all permissions.

Further down on page 2, beneath the subsection titled “Editorial Control,” the contract states:

The Publisher shall exercise sufficient editorial control of the Work to assure that the content of the Work is consistent with the doctrinal standards of Canon Press. . . . The Publisher and the Author shall check the proofs meticulously. . . .

This is the only section of the contract that identifies all three hats of the APE — Author, Publisher, and editor, or “editorial control” — and a fair reading of it leaves no wiggle-room for the APE to shrug his responsibility. He had the double responsibility of exercising editorial control and “meticulously” proofreading the manuscript.

Finally, on page 3 of the contract in the subsection titled “Warranties and Indemnities” (which is directly beneath the section “Moral Fitness of Author”), it states:

The Author warrants and represents that he is the sole author of the Work and owns all the rights granted to the Publisher under this agreement; that he has the full power to execute the agreement; that the Work has not been published in any form; that the Work will not infringe any copyright or other proprietary right . . . that he has obtained all permissions necessary for publication of the Work . . . .

This clause closes the deal. There is no safety net or escape hatch for the APE. He entered into a three-way covenant between himself as the Author and himself as the Publisher and himself as the Editor, and as the three-headed APE he bears the brunt of the responsibility. He is the principal party charged with the editorial control of the book as well as proofreading the manuscript, and he vouched for the book’s contents through and through. The APE painted himself into a corner that not even he can spin out of and in the end he made covenantal promises that he could not deliver.

Therefore, as the self-appointed fully documented anonymous attack arbitrator of this dispute, I affirm the opinion of Dr. Johnson and hold the APE accountable and culpable for the egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was. Furthermore, I find the APE in breach of contract, i.e. he is a covenant breaker, and therefore all the convenantal sanctions due to covenant breakers shall fall upon his head.

Thank you.

“Meet the Theonomists”

Earlier today I re-read “Meet the Theonomists” for the first time in many a moon and was blown away at Dr. Roche’s keen analysis and incredible foresight. Eight years ago he identified the key players in the Federal Vision — Wilson, Jordan, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Schlissel, Smith, Bledsoe (I deleted his emails from “Bag o’ Snakes”) — before they ever had their Vision. He also identified their “high-church ecclesiocentrism,” their aberrant covenant soteriology, their depreciation of the new birth for “covenant children,” and in Wilson’s and Wilkins’ case, their absurd revision of Southern history (he even smelled plagiarism). Moreover, he saw from afar the rivalry between Wilson and Sandlin (if you don’t know how that one ended, read this), and back then he affirmed James Jordan’s “bizarre” hermeneutic.

Of course, since there was no Federal Vision when Dr. Roche wrote this essay (he wrote it two years before the 2002 AAPC), he categorized his analysis under “theonomy.” Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how the theonomists have recast their message since then and how events have unfolded. Take the time to read “Meet the Theonomists” by Dr. Thomas Roche. He saw the Federal Vision in its germ state long before the Auburn Avenue clowns saw its infectious value and hatched it into their disease.

Thank you.

No Tolerance

Last night I was looking for my copy of RJ Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law, to see what he says the Bible demands for plagiarizers. I found volumes 2 & 3, but I couldn’t find the first volume. So I looked around the web and while I couldn’t find anything on plagiarism, I inadvertently fell on this little nugget that explains why the Federal Visionists will not bend one bit as they impose their doctrine on the Reformed church with extreme prejudice. In short, they have adopted a policy of no negotiation because they believe any concession amounts to “suicide”:

2. The Law as Revelation and Treaty
Law is in every culture religious in origin. Because law governs man and society, because it establishes and declares the meaning of justice and righteousness, law is inescapably religious, in that it establishes in practical fashion the ultimate concerns of a culture. Accordingly, a fundamental and necessary premise in any and every study of law must be, first, a recognition of this religious nature of law.

Second, it must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is god of that system. Thus, in Greek culture law was essentially a religiously humanistic concept. In contrast to every law derived from revelation, nomos for the Greeks originated in the mind (nous). So the genuine nomos is no mere obligatory law, but something in which an entity valid in itself is discovered and appropriated. . . . It is “the order which exists (from time immemorial), is valid and is put into operation.”[1]

Because for the Greeks mind was one being with the ultimate order of things, man’s mind was thus able to discover ultimate law (nomos) out of its own resources, by penetrating through the maze of accident and matter to the fundamental ideas of being. As a result, Greek culture became both humanistic, because man’s mind was one with ultimacy, and also neoplatonic, ascetic, and hostile to the world of matter, because mind, to be truly itself, had to separate itself from non-mind.

Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state, or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system. As Mao Tse-Tung has said, “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people.”[2] In Western culture, law has steadily moved away from God to the people (or the state) as its source, although the historic power and vitality of the West has been in Biblical faith and law.

Third, in any society, any change of law is an explicit or implicit change of religion. Nothing more clearly reveals, in fact, the religious change in a society than a legal revolution. When the legal foundations shift from Biblical law to humanism, it means that the society now draws its vitality and power from humanism, not from Christian theism.

Fourth, no disestablishment of religion as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. Since the foundations of law are inescapably religious, no society exists without a religious foundation or without a law-system which codifies the morality of its religion.

Fifth, there can be no tolerance in a law-system for another religion. Toleration is a device used to introduce a new law-system as a prelude to a new intolerance. Legal positivism, a humanistic faith, has been savage in its hostility to the Biblical law-system and has claimed to be an “open” system. But Cohen, by no means a Christian, has aptly described the logical positivists as “nihilists” and their faith as “nihilistic absolutism.”[3] Every law-system must maintain its existence by hostility to every other law-system and to alien religious foundations, or else it commits suicide. (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, “Introduction” [Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 1973] 5, 6)

[1] Hermann Kleinknecht and W. Gutbrod, Law (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1962), p. 21.

[2] Mao Tse-Tung, The Foolish Old Man Who Removed Mountains (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966), p. 3.

[3] Morris Raphael Cohen, Reason and Law (New York: Collier Books, 1961), p. 84 f.

Theonomic Plagiarist

From P&R News, Volume 6 Number 2, March—April 2000, page 7:

Steve Wilkins: “Is theonomy Reformed? Of course it is, or why would I embrace it? That’s the pro hominen argument.” * * * * Speaking of contemporary civil magistrates: “They are very good at regulating the price of milk, and what should go on a pizza, but they can’t catch a thief and they don’t know what to do with him if they do.”

Two questions:

1. If theonomy is Reformed and “Reformed” is not enough, then is “theonomy” enough? Okay, bad question. Let’s try another:


2. If the civil magistrate can’t catch a thief and wouldn’t know what to do with him if they did catch him, then what should a theonomic presbytery do with a plagiarist in their ranks?
   

Of course, I ask my second question with the assumption that plagiarism is theft.

Thank you.

Chapter Two

I don’t want anyone to think that success has gone to my head after WORLD Magazine reported the stunning revelations disclosed on my anonymous attack blog Fœdero Plagiary. Far from it. Therefore, today we shall resume our series on the literary theft of the first Federal Vision martyr, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, as we consider chapter 2 of his book Call of Duty: the Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee.

The keen observer will notice that this chapter does not have as much yellow highlight smothering its pages, but this is for two reasons. First, I’m too lazy to go to WSU and check out a book and, second, I had a mini-graphic-artist rebellion. So you will see two full pages without highlighted text — the first, page 40, I’m sure Wilkins plagiarized from the book Presbyterians in the South by Ernest Trice Thompson, because he devoted the whole page to the religious history of Lee’s hometown and he stuck a footnote at the bottom of the page, which is a sure sign that he plagiarized most of the text. The second is page 43, which has lots of little phrases pinched from Freeman’s R.E. Lee, but my graphic artist refuses to nickel and dime his time and my bandwidth. Consequently, you’ll have to make do with these few morsels of cherry-picked words, straight from that noble martyr of Federal Visionism — Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Check out Fœdero Plagiary.

Post Script: I just love the words “toddling about” on the last page of the chapter.

Thank you.

“That’s indoctrination”

I have really dropped the ball in my “DUMB & Tan” series and I hope to get back on track, but for now here is an article from The News & Observer out of Charlotte(?), North Carolina, that appeared 3 years ago yesterday, which was one year after the Southern Slavery scandal rocked the Palouse.

And there’s a funny story about the timing of this controversy as well. At that time, a history professor from the University of Washington (Dr. Tracy McKenzie, the same scholar who discovered the plagiarism) attended a CREC church in Washington and for some time he had wanted to inform the congregation of the historical inaccuracies in SSAIW, but Wilson would have none of it. Finally, they agreed that Wilson and Dr. McKenzie would discuss their disagreement in front of the congregation. However, during the week of the scheduled meeting this headline broke, which torpedoed Wilson’s position to say the least.

Now, if you’re in Douglas Wilson’s shoes when this happens, do you let this remarkable providence move you to reflect upon the pernicious effect that your fantastic revision of Southern history may have on those in your sphere of influence, or do you stick to your guns and tell the world to shove it? Guess what Wilson did?

When he went to Seattle to discuss his disagreement with Dr. McKenzie, he arranged to the elders of Eastside Evangelical Fellowship (now called Trinity Church) reprove Dr. McKenzie in front of the congregation for showing disrespect to Wilson. Dr. McKenzie resigned his membership from the church not long afterwards.

Here’s the article:

December 9, 2004
The News & Observer
School defends slavery booklet
T. Keung Hui; Staff Writer

Students at one of the area’s largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived “a life of plenty, of simple pleasures.” Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using Southern Slavery, As It Was, a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren’t treated as badly as people think.

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery. “You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective,” he said.

The booklet isn’t the only connection its two co-authors have with the school. One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson’s Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school’s graduation in May. Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson’s Idaho church.

The booklet’s other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group. “Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report. Potok said people who argue that the South should secede again have latched onto the writings of Wilson and Wilkins, which portray the Confederacy as the last true Christian civilization.

At a time when a number of Triangle Christian schools have lost enrollment and even closed, Cary Christian has seen rapid growth since it opened in 1996. The school has 623 students in kindergarten through 12th grade. With a relatively low tuition — up to $5,000 — it has attracted families from 55 churches. At least one parent must be a regular attendee of a church.

Classical education
Stephenson said the school’s growth is based on parental desire for a classical education founded on the basics of phonics, grammar, logic and rhetoric. Students read many classics, such as the writings of Plato and Socrates. “As a classical Christian school, we think it’s important for our students to be able to think and not be slanted to a particular position,” Stephenson said. “We want them to think for themselves.”

Until two years ago, Stephenson said, middle school students also had read excerpts from Southern Slavery. He said the booklet was a counterpoint to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which he said portrayed all Southern whites as treating their slaves badly. Once the Civil War was no longer taught in middle school, Stephenson said, Cary Christian stopped using the booklet in those grades.

But the 43-page booklet is still read in its entirety by ninth-graders when they study the Civil War. Stephenson said the booklet can help students formulate arguments when taking the pro-Southern side in debates. “A student may be assigned an opinion they may not agree with, so they will understand both sides,” Stephenson said.

Angela Kennedy, whose daughters have attended Cary Christian since 1996, said all the booklet does is help students learn about both sides so that they have a basis to form their own opinions. She pointed out that the students also read Abraham Lincoln’s speeches. “They really do get both sides of the story,” Kennedy said. “In public schools, all they get is one side of the story. That’s not education. That’s indoctrination.”

Stephenson said the booklet is discussed for two days. Even as they read the booklet, he said, students are told slavery was wrong. “Slavery is wrong,” Stephenson said. “That’s not debatable about slavery. The South was wrong about the slave trade.”

Parent’s support
Marcus Ranch, who has three daughters at Cary Christian, said he has no problem with the school using the booklet. He said it offers an accurate portrayal that is overlooked of how many slaves were treated kindly by their owners. “That book is fine,” Ranch said. “It does a good job with that particular perspective.”

But Potok questioned how the school can use a booklet that asserts that slavery “was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.” “What these men have written is an apology for slavery,” he said. “They’re putting window dressing on an abhorrent institution.” Potok also blasted the booklet, which was published in 1996, for plagiarizing a previous work. The booklet has received criticism from a number of historians.

Wilson declined to comment and referred questions to his assistant, Mike Lawyer. Lawyer said the booklet has been pulled from publication because of faulty footnotes and citation errors. Lawyer said he thinks few schools use the booklet, which is published by a company owned by Wilson’s Idaho church. But Lawyer said the authors stand by their central belief that the Civil War didn’t have to happen and that slavery would have ended on its own. “The Southern Poverty Law Center is just trying to make money out of this,” Lawyer said. “The Southern Poverty Law Center is totally off base to think in any way that the book is neo-Confederate.”

But the use of the booklet is leaving some area pastors concerned that it could promote intolerance. “If there’s any attempt to divide us, it’s totally un-Christian,” said Richard Dial, pastor of Cary Church of God. Mike Woods, administrator of Wake Christian Academy, said he couldn’t see his school using “Southern Slavery, As it Was,” especially with younger students. “It’s so easy for some of them to take something they read and assume you’re in favor of it,” he said.

SOUTHERN SLAVERY, AS IT WAS
Here are some excerpts from the booklet:

• “To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns (slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of condemnation upon the South.” (page 22)


• “As we have already mentioned, the ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories.” (page 22)


• “Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.” (page 24)


• “There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.” (page 24)


• “Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.” (page 25)


• “But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends.” (page 27)


• “Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South—and had a much easier existence.” (page 30)

Thank you.

Ethically and Morally

From the Biblical Horizons “members only” email list:

May 29, 2003
The Bunny wrote:

Men,

I’m reading through William H. Willimon’s new book Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry (Abingdon, 2002). So for it’s okay. But I’m repeatedly irked by positive references to all sorts of quasi-orthodox “pastors.” Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. What to do with the guy? I have a hard time taking him seriously. Isn’t there something to the accusations of womanizing and plagiarism (for his doctorate)? Are there any good sources for learning more about him?

PB

check out Ralph Abernathy’s The Walls Came Tumbling Down for confirmation of King’s promiscuity (Abernathy is an honorable man and a Christian, he admired King very much but acknowledged what everyone around him knew. His womanizing was well known among his entourage)

Theodore Pappas is the one who did the work exposing the details on King’s doctorate, his articles first appeared in Chronicles magazine (they may be in the archives on the Chronicles web site). Pappas’ findings have not been refuted though Boston University did try to justify its action in granting the doctorate in light of the revelations.

Whatever you may think of his politics, M.L. King was a mess ethically and morally.

sw [Steve Wilkins]

Steve Wilkins, call your office.

Thank you.

George Orwell, call your office.

“If you want to read an indictment of American academia, as if you needed one, then I recommend Plagiarism and the Culture War. In it, Theodore Pappas documents the wholesale plagiarism committed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his doctoral work, not to mention the varied and wondrous contortions of the academic establishment as they sought to studiously ignore this indisputable fact. Of course, this particular instance is not the sum and substance of modern academic corruption, but it does provide a wonderful example of how it all works. If you are in any doubt about how advanced our public corruption is, just write a letter to your local paper on how MLK was a plagiarist, and see what happens. Suddenly, mirabile dictu, people like you who believe that a man should be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin will be branded . . . racists. George Orwell, call your office.” (Douglas Wilson, Credenda Agenda, 11-1)

Iron Rose

The Iron Rose of Moscow swings a petal here.

To the Editor

After WORLD Magazine covered the original story of Wilson’s and Wilkins’ co-plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was, Steve Wilkins wrote this letter to the editor:

WORLD’s brief notice regarding “Slavery as It Was” inaccurately stated that sections of the booklet were “stolen.” The portions that were labeled “plagiarism” came straight from my lecture notes which were not referenced and I neglected to go through them carefully and reference them properly before submitting them for inclusion in the booklet. There was never any intent to “steal” anything or deceive anyone, however. I always made plain in lectures that this material was drawn from Time on the Cross and was not my own. Though it may be acceptable to note this orally, it is inappropriate and inexcusable not to make plain your sources when you publish material. Since I did not do this, I deserve all the blame for this sloppy, inexcusable, and unjustifiable action. My negligence is culpable but it was not thievery — and none of this was Doug Wilson’s fault. As far as this story is concerned, the blame is all mine.

— Steve Wilkins; Monroe, La.

Thank you.

Plagiarism Defined

I find it interesting that no one from the Federal Vision camp has stepped forward to defend Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Nevertheless, some might find it helpful to consider the definition of “plagiarism” as defined by his alma maters. According to Auburn Avenue’s website,

Steve Wilkins holds a Bachelor of Science degree (in Pre-Law) from the University of Alabama and a Masters of Divinity from the Reformed Theological Seminary of Jackson, Mississippi. He has been an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America since 1976.

The “Code of Academic Conduct” for the University of Alabama states:

Plagiarism

The Code of Academic Conduct in the University of Alabama Undergraduate Catalog defines plagiarism and other acts of academic dishonesty as follows:

• Plagiarism: representing the words, data, works, ideas, computer programs or output, or anything not generated in an authorized fashion, as one’s own

• Cheating: using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or computer-related information

• Fabrication: presenting as genuine any invented or falsified citation or material

• Misrepresentation: falsifying, altering, or misstating the contents of documents or other materials related to academic matters, including schedules, prerequisites, and transcripts.

Although authors occasionally indulge in plagiarism intentionally, most often writers plagiarize unintentionally. Many do not realize that indirect quotations, which result from paraphrasing and summarizing material, also require acknowledgment of the author and the source of the idea.

A direct quotation of an author’s exact words is the only footnoted material that requires the use of quotation marks, but both direct and indirect quotations must be footnoted. Any idea or statement that is not the author’s own must be documented.

Remember — the following require the use of a citation:

• Any material directly quoted from another’s work

• Any information that is summarized or paraphrased

• Any idea derived from a known source

• Any fact or data that is not common knowledge and is borrowed from another’s work

Material that is common or general knowledge does not have to be footnoted, unless the wording is taken directly from a particular source. A general rule is that if a fact can be found in five or more sources, it is considered to be common knowledge and does not have to be documented.

Anthony C. Winkler

And the Student Handbook for Reformed Theological Seminary states,

Plagiarism. Research papers require borrowing other people’s ideas and words. However, the source of such borrowing must be acknowledged properly. If the source is not acknowledged properly, your work is plagiarism. At issue is your academic honesty.

1. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers says “to plagiarize is to give the impression that you have written or thought something that you have in fact borrowed from someone else.”


2. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines plagiarize as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own; use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.”
   

Plagiarism includes word-for-word copying, lifting terms, restatement of someone’s argument or line of thought, copying what the writer of Ten Steps in Writing the Research Paper calls “perfect phrases” — all without acknowledgment of source. Plagiarism also includes giving a source partial credit when more is taken from that source than indicated and quoting or paraphrasing in patchwork fashion. . . .

Plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, is considered academic theft. When discovered, it results in loss of reputation or position and other punishments. The academic consequences of plagiarism at RTS are as follows:

1. First offense: The student must rewrite the paper and receive no better than a passing “D” grade for it.
2. Second offense: The student fails the entire course.

I invite Mr. Wilkins to utilize his pre-law degree and defend himself.

Thank you.

Anonymous Attack Blog Makes WORLD!

WORLD on the web, the WORLD Magazine blog, has picked up the Steve Wilkins’ plagiarism story, reporting it in a piece titled “New/old plagiarism scandal.” Hmmm, I wonder what principle of justice WORLD violated. Perhaps Bhagwan Shree Wilsoneesh could inform us.

Thank you.

Good Question

Someone just asked me a question that I believe deserves front-page exposure along with the answer:

Though I don’t oppose what you are doing, I would be interested to know why you think it necessary to expose Mr. Wilkins on this score.

I answered:

You ask a good question and the answer is simple: the Federal Visionists maintain that Wilkins is a martyr. In fact, Wilson even compared him to Machen (hence the nickname). But if they want to play the martyr card, which they have done very well so far, then they have to consider ALL of Wilkins’ testimony (remember that the word “martyr” means “witness”). This includes his written works, which he passed off as his own and sold to the general public when he didn’t write a word of it. The man is a complete fake, an intellectual vacuum, and a theological scoundrel. And he is the first Federal Vision martyr.

Is he a Christian? I have no idea. But here we see wholesale violations of the Eighth and Ninth Commandments that he sold for profit, which cuts to the heart of the issue — CHARACTER. This is Steve Wilkins’ character. This is his witness in black, white, and yellow. This is a leader in the Federal Visionist camp. This is their idea of honor and nobility.

So if Wilson and his monkey boys are going to showboat Steve Wilkins before the world, then I believe it’s imperative for them to decorate their cabin cruiser with ALL of his brilliant lights. They want him, they can have him. All of him.

But I want to add that this new wrinkle in the Federal Vision should give LAP another reason to contemplate Bob Mattes’ “friendly advice.” Do they really want to keep hold of this guy with all this luggage? And we haven’t even begun either. We have unbelievable examples in future posts — and all of them reveal the CHARACTER of Steven “Machen” Wilkins.

Thank you.

Fully Documented Anonymous Attack

Continuing our fully documented anonymous attack against Steven “Machen” Wilkins’ plagiarism, we proceed to the next chapter of his book Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which he titled “Birth and Lineage” but could have just as well called “Lineage and Boyhood” because he took the vast majority of his text from a chapter of the same name from the book The Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee, by William Jones. To be sure, ol’ “Machen” Wilkins stuck to Williams’ blueprint with little variation, except that he garnished his text with words taken directly from R. E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his work in 1935. Of course, the wag in me wonders if we should nominate Steven “Machen” Wilkins for a Pulitzer Prize in plagiarism; perhaps Pastor Wilson could offer his opinion (we know you’re watching, Doug). Wilkins also relied on A.L. Long’s Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, which we fully document on our sister site Fœdero Plagiary as well. Give it a look.

Thank you.

Fœdero Plagiary

With a lot of help from my friends, I now have a sister site called Fœdero Plagiary, which is dedicated to the plagiarism of Federal Vision martyr Steven “Machen” Wilkins, who did not limit his literary theft to the booklet Southern Slavery As It Was (1996).

Now, blogging on this particular subject is a huge undertaking because of the heavy graphics and massive bandwidth involved. But I have the finest graphic artist in the area who has committed a couple of hours a week to helping expose the fraud — and as you will see the amount of fraud is staggering, because ol’ “Machen” Wilkins struggled getting through a single page of his books without lifting large blocks of text from other men’s works.

And if I may take from Beelzeblog’s words, “But I can assure you that it will not occur without a running color commentary from me. After Steven “Machen” Wilkins steals his text, we are all going to watch the replay a hundred times, including the tape of Beelzeblog condemning the sin of plagiarism, and I am going to be John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing. And I will have some particularly ripe comments to go with it. It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents.”

For tonight, however, suffice to say that in 1997 George Grant of Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., commissioned Steven Wilkins to write a biography of Robert E. Lee. Wilkins titled his book Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee; however, he borrowed more words than he wrote, to put it nicely.

Our premier post is taken entirely from Wilkins’ opening chapter — “Prologue” — and as you will see it establishes the pattern for the rest of the book. In this chapter Wilkins took from Lee: The Last Years, by Charles Bracelen Flood (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981) and Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee by J. William Jones (New York: D. Appleton, 1875), but by no means did he limit himself to these two resources.

Indeed, as we scan the book one page at a time, you will see that Wilkins took large chunks from R. E. Lee (Douglas Freeman, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935), which won the Pulitzer Prize. But the bottom line is that Wilkins essentially plagiarized the whole thing. How “noble” of him.

Thank you.


PS: If DaFedSez is still out there, I invite you to apply your peculiar talent to this subject as well.

Wilsonistas Gone Wild! ! ! !

A couple of days ago we witnessed Pastor Douglas Wilson’s flying monkey boys pollute the Internet with comments in defense of their Fearless Leader. For the record, this was not the first time it happened; witness Patrick Poole — that man “who acts with integrity.”

Thursday, February 16, 2006
Wilsonistas Gone Wild! ! ! !
Following up on my post from yesterday, “The Mendacious Mullah of Moscow,” I’ve received a torrent of hate mail — all of which curiously originates from residents of Moscow, Idaho. The letters all follow along the same lines, making me wonder if there isn’t some “insert the adjective” webmail form letter over at dougwils.com. The letters generally run as follows:

Dear Reformed Reprobate,

Greetings in Christ! I am a member at Christ Church/I’m a student at New St. Andrews/I’m on staff at Logos Schools/I’m married to one of the Great Leader’s children, and I wanted you to know how much I would love to put the serrated edge against your throat for daring to question the wisdom of our Great Leader, but as a fellow brother/sister in Christ, I will refrain from doing so (at least at the moment, you presbyterian pig). Our Great Leader vanquishes his foes merely by the word of his power and pen, so where do you get off saying negative things without having submitted yourself to the higher knowledge that proceeds from our Great Leader’s mouth and keyboard?

I just read on our Great Leader’s blog his recent instructions not to speak, hear, or think, let alone blog, about anything with reference to the Great Leader’s liquor distributor, friend, and future CREC colleague, R.C. Sproul, Jr.; and if it’s on his blog, I believe it and that settles it. If fact, I didn’t even permit myself to think about it as I was just writing about it. How dare you consider yourself a Christian and believe that you too can blog on the same topics as the Great Leader!

But you take your spiritual rebellion even one step further and blaspheme our Great Leader by challenging the infallibility of his version of events in the matter that I’m not even allowed to remember. And how can you claim to know any truth living so far away from the Moscow Mecca? Our Great Leader only speaks truth, only thinks truth, and IS truth, you wretched revisionist! If you have doubts, you should register your doubts with the Great Leader’s Judicial Committee, who will legitimate anything our Great Leader says, including verifying any unsigned documents he might provide as evidence to rebut your witness, in order to quickly dispel your heretical notions about the Great Leader’s unquestioned truthfulness.

If that doesn’t convince you, your only recourse is to register an official complaint with the Cult of Personality Committee of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Cults, who’s first task will be to examine if you first followed Matthew 18 before you dared to question the Great Leader’s veracity. And they will show you no mercy, you covenant-breaking non-paedo-communionist!

It is people like you that sow seeds of doubt amongst the weaker brothers and sisters of the True Kirk and feed the evil that dare not be named (Dr. Terry Morin — ed.). Since you posted your blog article after our weekly Wednesday afternoon imprecatory prayer session, we will have to wait another week before we pray down the Great Leader’s Righteous Justice upon you for your scurrilous sacrilege. My sincerest hope in life is that you rot in eternal fires of Blog and Mablog for your crimes, or are at least satirized as a macaroni dish in the forthcoming issue of Credenda/Agenda. But even that terrible fate will not compare to the eternal horror should the Great Leader set his steely gaze and his poisoned pen upon you. Prepare to meet your fate, reprobate!

Peace in Christ and death to all infidels,

xxx

Again, this is generally how the hate mail runs, so I admit to taking some literary license here. But anyone who has ever been on the working end of a Wilsonista jihad will know that I’m not that far off the mark. While the Great Leader is quite fond of repeatedly noting the “fellowship of the grievance,” aka the Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy, this is far from a strictly anti-Wilson sect.

It was last year that I began noticing whenever anything that could even be slightly construed as negative was said on the Internet about the Sultan of Subjectivity that the same cast of characters would magically appear out of thin air to fiercely attack not just any criticism of Wilson, but savage the critics themselves.

The best example I can remember was the hatchet-job that the Great Leader engineered against Knox Seminary professor Cal Beisner in a WorldMagBlog discussion last April (this is lengthy, but please bear with me).

At issue was a brief article published by WORLD (follow the link and go down to “Doug Wilson and Slavery”) concerning the Southern Slavery As It Was plagiarism flap. Wilson immediately showed up on the scene in the comment section (Comment #7) to rake WORLD over for daring to mention the flap and for not abiding by his interpretation of the facts. In his opening comment, he attacked the credibility of WORLD because they chose to quote someone he didn’t like. Here’s his opening post in its entirety:

I have gone back and forth on whether to say anything, but it seems to me that this is an venue where we can have a courteous discussion about this, particularly since comments were invited. That said, the article was extremely disappointing. World magazine weighed into a local controversy when they simply didn’t have the background on it (despite having plenty of time). For local Christians here in Moscow, it is hard to swallow when our fellow believers at World quote someone who lives in the Ward Churchill universe as some kind of authority. I did not take this story as any kind of attack on us, but as a news story it failed, at a number of points. Disappointing. I don’t want to have to start reading all World articles with the nagging thought in the back of my mind — do they do this kind of thing in their other reporting? I hope not. Doug Wilson (Comment #7)

Did you catch that sleight of hand? Anyone in academia is compared to Ward Churchill. WORLD quotes someone in academia, so he is concerned about the quality of all their reporting. How’s that for charity? But this was just the beginning.

In short order, Nate Wilson showed up (Comment #30) to attack someone who questioned his father’s very generous definition of plagiarism. By the time the Great Leader made his next significant statement (Comment #55), the “Suffering Servant” messiah complex was in full bloom. The Wilsonistas had already laid the rhetorical groundwork for that:

I’d say pastor Wilson is operating right in the footsteps of the Christ. And if you had your way, I’ll bet there’s a nice bald hill somewhere on the Palouse, where you would end his life just as the Pharisees ended those of the Christ that he follows! (Comment #49)

Anyone attacking Wilson was now a Pharisee re-crucifying Christ! But hold on; I’m not even getting started yet!

No sooner had someone cited the New St. Andrews catalog on plagiarism (Comment #63), then the Great Leader was back armed with a fable to explain it all away (Comment #69). Ignore the man behind the curtain! When everyone did not take the bait, he claimed to call it quits (Comment #80).

After that, Cal Beisner arrived (Comments #101 & 103) citing an ANTITHESIS article that Wilson had written, “Wrestling with Wesley,” where Wilson charged John Wesley with plagiarism for treating texts in exactly the same manner as Wilson/Wilkins had handled the disputed portions of SSAIW, which, he was desperate to explain, was really carelessness, not plagiarism at all. Cal later cited another instance (Comment #132) where scores of students had been expelled and had degrees revoked for the same kind of text lifting that had occurred with SSAIW.

In all fairness, Cal’s comments were not an attack on Wilson and the charity and friendship he has exhibited towards Wilson is well known. If anything, Cal had been the most reasonable voice in the Auburn Avenue wars and went out of his way to give Wilson, et al. a fair hearing by raising the funding and chairing the the Auburn Avenue Colloquium to give those men ample opportunity to explain their views. Additionally, Cal had a book published a while ago by Canon Press, Evangelical Heathenism. With credentials like that, it is difficult to cast him into the category of the “fellowship of the grievance” or an “intolerista.”

The plot thickened when Cal made the following statement with reference to Wilson’s book:

Let me make my position clear: SSAIW is historical trash, as demonstrated by a number of written critiques (including McKenzie’s — which, along with Wilson’s response and McKenzie’s rejoinder, I have read). It also makes the stupid error of equating Southern black chattel slavery, which, founded on manstealing, was sinful, with the types of slavery (bonded servanthood, slavery to pay debts, slavery as punishment for crime, or slavery as alternative to death in warfare) countenanced (under carefully regulated conditions) in the Bible. But by lack of training in historical research, or by mistakes in logic, or both, one may argue in substance what Wilkins and Wilson argued while not being vulnerable to serious moral censure. Plagiarism, for someone who, like Wilson, had demonstrated that he knew better (in his essay on Wesley and the policies of NSA), is another matter. (Comment #139)

Whether it was Cal’s comment, or the appearance of the evil that dare not be named (Dr. Terry Morin — Comment #121), that provoked the following attack on Cal, no one may ever know:

Hello, I couldn’t help it. I tried putting myself in time-out until I calmed down, but I got loose when I wasn’t looking, and so here I come, cannon balling into the fracas.

The real disappointment is Cal Beisner, who ought to know better. How tedious to see him be so dishonest with the facts. He is manipulating his definitions to smear Doug. Either that, or he has absolutely no sense of proportion or wisdom. I have sat on a number of disciplinary hearing committees for plagiarism, and there is a big difference between someone who has plagiarized and someone who has made a major gaffe in their citations. One is carelessness and the other is deceit. I am completely baffled by Beisner, a college instructor, and his refusal to make this distinction. What a scary thought to be the student of a man who won’t acknowledge the difference. Or is there another motivation in trying to get a plagiarism charge to stick against Doug?

Does anybody else think it is odd that all the hullabaloo is aimed at Doug, when the portions of the work that are being featured in our various tirades were all actually Wilkins’ sections? Is it maybe because the point is not plagiarism, but actually the chance to go after Wilson? Here’s an interesting parallel: Rose Huskey (who posted above) has made herself a little cottage industry here in Moscow out of bringing charges against anything that Doug Wilson touches. And she regularly insists that it has nothing to do with her hatred for Doug Wilson; it is the principle of the law that she is concerned about. But she has been provided with a number of other local churches which are violating the same law (as she reads it) and to the same degree, yet she turns them the blind eye. Beisner’s singling out of Wilson smacks of a similar zeal for righteousness.

Very principled.

By the way, I don’t think there is any need to go after Wilkins. He has handled the whole thing quite admirably and is a very honorable man. Wilkins has the sort of wisdom to make the distinctions that Beisner is missing. I only bring him in to point out the inconsistency of the men with the Doug-complex. (Comment #150)

Cal is “dishonest with the facts”; he was “manipulating his definitions to smear Doug”; he had “no sense of proportion or wisdom”; he couldn’t discern the distinction between carelessness and deceit; he had a “Doug-complex.” The Wilsonista jihad was on.

What made this comment so interesting, apart from its vicious and condescending spirit, is that it bore a very familiar name: Douglas Wilson. The email address it bore, however, was also familiar to those who take note of the Kirk Krusaders: bmerkle@nsa.edu. This email belongs to Ben Merkle, Wilson’s son-in-law. Remember, Wilson had said that he was taking his leave of the discussion. What could possibly be going on? Surely some machination of the Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy was afoot and up to no good!

Immediately, one of Diotrephes Doug’s devoted disciples and regular Blog and Mablog commentors, Valerie, began attacking the commentator who pointed out the bizarre scenario unfolding before the readers, attempting to provide an explanation as to how such could have “accidentally” happened. In short order, Wilson himself reappeared out of thin air to explain it all:

This really is Doug Wilson, and I know I said I wasn’t going to post anymore. Events overtook me. Anyhow, Ben Merkle, my son-in-law, posted from our computer at our home, and through an unfortunate computer deal, the post that he wrote from here showed up over my name. Anyhow, I would like to take this opportunity to accuse Ben of plagiarism, and demand a full apology. (Comment #157)

Yep, no coordinated attacks on Cal Beisner from the very heart of Moscow Mecca to be found here! Just a keystone cops series of events! Following his father-in-law’s laughable lead, Merkle chimed in:

Yipes. The earlier post, which begins with “Hello, I couldn’t help it” was written by me, Ben Merkle. I was visiting at Doug and Nancy’s when I typed it. I managed to get in my email address, but somehow missed that Doug’s name had automatically appeared in the name slot. It was me. I take full credit for it. I hang my head way way low.

Wait. Hold on a second. Darn it, it happened again! Doug Wilson’s name hanging up there taking credit for somebody else’s work. Plagiarist! Holocaust denier! Horse thief! (Comment #160)

Can you hear the nervousness in their laughter increasing? Wilson had to keep the laughter going:

No, wait. It was his writing, and my name, so I was the one guilty of plagiarism on this one. Is that right? We need a determination from the line judge. Seriously, that was not a set-up. Not done on purpose. Pure accident and computer glitch. But still, my name showed up under Ben’s writing. Should I confess to plagiarism? Given some of the argumentation above, why not? (Comment #161)

Ha ha! Chuckle, chuckle! But no apology for the clearly coordinated backstab to Cal Beisner. Demand all the charity you want — this was a planned hit.

Professional Wilson apologist Tim Bayly (follow the link to his blog and check out the posts in recent weeks by he and his brother, David, shouting down any criticsm of Wilson and Sproul, Jr.) showed up to cover-up the hatchet job with a Wilson lovefest:

My brother, David, and I want to state publicly our support for Christ Church, her pastors and elders. You may read our fuller comments on our blog found here.

May God bless Pastor Doug Wilson as he confesses our most holy Faith. (Comment #177)

Wilson is confessing “our most holy Faith,” so his opponents must not be. Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Cult (CREC) members quickly gathered to join the happy chorus (Comments #222 & 223) to make sure that any discussion of the bungled attack on Beisner was quickly shoved out of sight. But the attacks on all members of the Vast Anti-Doug Conspiracy continued over at Blog and Mablog for more than a week afterwards:

• “Boethius Counting His Toes” — where he describes his critics on WorldMagBlog as “a weird coalition of lesbians, evangelicals, secularists, anti-Auburn avenue folks, and pro-abortionists.”

• “Can’t Tell the Players Without a Scorecard” — where Wilson begins reciting his enemies list of those who posted, and many who didn’t, in the WorldMagBlog fracas.

• “Son of Can’t Tell the Players” — where he spins the discussion and Beisner’s comments by stating that “Cal joined up with overt enemies of Christ and His gospel, trying to make the same point they were making, with no apparent sense of who his friends and enemies actually were”; yeah, real charitable. . .

• “My Relationship with WORLD” — where he admits to browbeating WORLD publisher, Joel Belz, before the WORLD reporters even interviewed him to avoid having to address the plagiarism issue; also note the ritual denunciation of “intoleristas,” etc.

• “Me and Steve” — where he wrings the admission of sloppiness out of Steve Wilkins that he refuses to give regarding the plagiarism in their SSAIW book.

• “Gettysburg Do-Over” — where he revisits the criticisms from the WorldMagBlog discussion in an environment that HE controls.

• “Accuracy and Objectivity” — another sucker-punch to WORLD and the quality of their reporting.

• “Biblical Absolutism” — addressing Beisner, Wilson says that his interpretation is the only one truly faithful to Scripture.

• “Kick It Up a Notch” — where he thanks his supporters for doing his dirty work during the WorldMagBlog brawl and takes his rightful place upon the Credenda/Agenda cross to suffer for the sins of the “intoleristas.”

If you’ve followed me thus far, I hope that I’ve identified the malicious methodology of the Great Leader and his followers: de l’attack, encore de l’attack, et toujours de l’attack; et Le Mullah est sauve!

When you see it spelled out like this in blow-by-blow detail as I’ve laid out examining the coordinated attack on Cal Beisner, the abusive patterns are easier to see. It truly is heartbreakingly tragic. Really. The blind, unquestioning faith that the Wilsonistas place in their Great Leader makes it all acceptable. So I have been hardly surprised by the hate mail I’ve been getting from the Wilsonistas. This is the behavior they are taught is normal; any attack on Wilson is by anti-Christs or those who are only “objectively” Christian, but have aligned themselves with the forces of pure evil. Even better, they have the whole theology and ecclesiastical system to back it all up. Much like The Matrix.

I have some further thoughts and responses to some of issues raised in the hate mail that I want to respond to, but the hour is late (or early, as the case may be) and I’m going to take my leave to get some overdue rest. Stay tuned!
POSTED BY PATRICK POOLE AT 6:10 AM

Thank you.

Cursed

Yesterday Green Baggins continued his book review of “Reformed” Is Not Enough by addressing the chapter entitled “Blessings and Curses,” and in his usual manner Lane breezed through the chapter highlighting a few points he thought noteworthy, which did not include Wilson’s theology of reading tea leaves:

We must not just learn from the fact of covenant curses, but also the place and purpose of them, and the need for proper interpretation. . . . Scripture teaches us that God expects us to understand the world around us. This is just another way of saying that we are called to interpret the “good” things and the “bad” things that happen to us in terms of covenantal blessings and chastisements, and we are to modify our behavior accordingly. We are not to do this woodenly. . . . We need covenant feedback. Without nerve endings and the pain and pleasure they bring, we would all quickly destroy ourselves. In order to live prudently with our bodies, we need feedback from the environment which tells us what is harmful and what is not. In the same way, we need covenant feedback. “Do so more and more” comes in the form of covenant blessings. “Knock that off” comes in the form of covenant chastisement and admonition. . . . The answer is that we know these things by faith. God explains to us how the world generally runs, and we submit to Him in that governance of the world, and so we thank Him for good things and search our hearts and motives when bad things happen. We do this knowing that covenant-breakers can receive good things for a time and that covenant-keepers may go through rough waters. (“Reformed” Is Not Enough, 157–159)

So I want to give my Reformed readers some historical facts to contemplate regarding “covenant feedback” here in Moscow and let you interpret these events as you see fit, because it’s clear that it has not yet registered with Wilson. And as you read this punch list, remind yourself that Wilson sees himself and his church as leaders of the new “Reformation” that he believes God has begun in Moscow.

• April 2002 — The OPC’s Presbytery of the Dakotas resolves unanimously to declare Douglas Wilson “a dangerous man,” because of his interference in a church discipline matter.


• June 2002 — The RPCUS resolves Wilson and the Monroe Four “heretics,” setting in motion the Federal Vision controversy.


• February 2003 — The members of Christ Church learn that Wilson and his elders secretly took $1,000 from the tithe to payoff the illegal gambling debts of church officers’ children.


• March 2003 — The elders of the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, Washington, discover that Wilson and the Christ Church elders used fraudulent documents in a church-court case to cover up Wilson’s sin.


• March 2003 — A history professor from the University of Washington and member of the CREC notifies Wilson that Southern Slavery As It Was is replete with plagiarized text. Wilson denies the accusation.


• August 2003 — After spending the summer molesting children at RC Jr’s church in Virginia, serial pedophile Steven Sitler arrives in Moscow to prey on several Kirk children.


• September 2003 — Christ Church opens a “line of credit” to fund Canon Press because they could not make payroll. Since then Canon downsized by laying off and terminating key employees.


• October 2003 — The Daily News ran the “Southern Slavery” headline describing Wilson as a racist; the AP wire sent the story to the four corners of the earth. Eventually Wilson made the front page of the Spokesman Review and the Idaho Statesman.


• November 2003 — The Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, WA, issued its first of three warnings against Douglas Wilson to its congregation.


• November 2003 — The presidents of the University of Idaho and Washington State University issue public statements repudiating Douglas Wilson’s embarrassing revision of Southern slavery.


• November 2003 — A coal-chute door in the basement swings open and knocks Doug Jones unconscious nearly killing him.


• January 2004 — Wilson secretly pulls Southern Slavery As It Was from Canon Press’ shelves after a history professor from the University of Washington proves the book contained plagiarism.


• February 2004 — More than 1,000 citizens on the Palouse sign a public rebuke to Douglas Wilson (“Not In Our Town”) and publish it in a two full-page ads in the local newspapers.


• July 2004 — The Latah County Commissioners order Christ Church and NSA to pay property tax in a high-profile headline case.


• August 2004 — The Daily News runs a front-page story exposing Wilson’s plagiarism in the book Southern Slavery As It Was.


• August 2004 — Sixty-seven academics on the Palouse sign a public statement affirming that they would have flunked Wilson for plagiarism in his work Southern Slavery As It Was.


• December 2004 — Wilson cancels a scheduled meeting at a CREC church in Bellevue, WA, to defend Southern Slavery As It Was against a University of Washington history professor’s refutation of it, because a North Carolina newspaper discovered the book and ran a story about it two days before the meeting.


• January 2005 — Shroud of Turin scholars disprove Nate Wilson’s Shroud theory; Wilson never acknowledges it.


• January 2005 — Three former kirkers sign a zoning complaint against NSA; the Moscow City Council eventually upholds the complaint, declaring NSA in violation of the law. To this day, NSA continues to violate the Zoning Code.


• February 2005 — Wilson discovers that one of his Greyfriar students had molested a teenager in the congregation for several years running.


• March 2005 — Wilson discovers that Steven Sitler spent the last 18 months molesting several kirker children; he decides to withhold this information from the congregation. To this day no one can identify all of Sitler’s victims.


• April 2005 — WORLD Magazine publishes a story exposing Wilson’s plagiarism.


• June 2005 — A close friend of Wilson’s anonymously publishes an open letter of rebuke to Wilson (I am one of seven persons who knows who wrote it).


• August 2005 — In separate court cases, Steven Sitler and the Greyfriar student plead guilty to their particular sex offenses respectively.


• May 2006 — A poisonous spider bites Doug Jones and nearly kills him; they had to fly him to a Spokane hospital where he spent a week recovering.


• November 2006 — The Church of the King–Santa Cruz withdraws from the CREC and issues a public rebuke to its former fellow-confederates for approving Wilson’s sin.


• February 2007 — Wilson discovers that one of his Greyfriar students is a deadbeat dad who fathered several children out of wedlock and owes over $90,000 in child support to four different women. Ironically, he fled to Moscow four years ago for its “family values.”


• February 2007 — An Eastern Orthodox priest publicly rebukes Wilson for interfering in the life of one of his sheep.


• June 2007 — The 35th General Assembly of the PCA votes to repudiate the Federal Vision by an overwhelming margin.


• August 2007 — A former NSA student publicly thanks Wilson and the Federal Vision for leading him to Roman Catholicism.

Memo to Wilson:
Maybe it’s time for a little of that “morbid introspection.”

Thank you.